| Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |
| Citations | [2021] UKSC 8, [2018] EWCA Civ 1641 |
| Keywords | |
| Minimum wage, sleeping | |
Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake [2021] UKSC 8 is a UK labour law case, concerning the right to be paid when an employer constrains their worker's freedom.
Mrs. Tomlinson-Blake and another care-worker claimed that they should be paid the minimum wage which included her time while she was asleep and still was required to be at her workplace semi-actively, simultaneously. She cared for two adults in their home, and when she worked at night she could sleep, but had to remain at work, without duties, except to ‘keep a listening ear out’, and to attend to emergencies infrequently. She received an allowance, plus one hour's pay at the rate under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
Under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, regulation 32 stated that when a worker is required to be available at, or near an employer's place of business to do ‘time work’, this should be included in time worked, but with the exceptions for; (1) the worker being permitted to sleep during a shift and (2) the worker being at home. The worker is only to be paid when ‘awake for the purpose of working’. Borrowing the courtesy of the aforementioned law, Mrs. Tomlinson-Blake argued that having to "keep a listening ear out" meant she was working, and should be paid the minimum wage.
Tribunal and EAT held that she was actually working through her shift. The Court of Appeal held that there was no right to the minimum wage while sleeping under the NMWR.
Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, and held that the Regulations could not be interpreted to mean that people should be paid when sleeping, even with "a listening ear". Lady Arden said the following in her judgment.
12. The first report of the LPC was presented to Parliament in June 1998 (The National Minimum Wage - First Report of the Low Pay Commission (Cm 3976)). It contained a specific recommendation relevant to sleep-in shifts: see paras 4.33 and 4.34. The LPC recommended as the starting point for defining working time all time which a worker had to spend at his employer’s place of work, even if no work was available. This would not include time which a worker had to spend at some other place on standby or on call. A special rule was needed for those required to be on call and to sleep at their employer’s premises, and no distinction was drawn between types of work. The LPC recommended that:
“For hours when workers are paid to sleep on the premises, we recommend that workers and employers should agree their allowance, as they do now. But workers should be entitled to the National Minimum Wage for all times when they are awake and required to be available for work.” (para 4.34)13. That recommendation was clearly intended to apply to all workers who were paid to sleep on the premises. When the President of the Board of Trade presented the First Report to the House of Commons, she explained the principal recommendations and recorded the government’s acceptance of (among other things) its other recommendations:
“The remaining Low Pay Commission recommendations deal with such technical matters as the composition and reference period for calculating the minimum wage, the handling of benefits in kind and its application to homeworkers and pieceworkers. We fully and carefully considered those recommendations and accept them in principle, subject to consultation on the practicalities and detail of their implementation when formulating the regulations implementing the national minimum wage.” (Hansard (HC Debates), 18 June 1998, vol 314, cols 508-509)...
44. In my judgment, applying the approach explained above, the special rule for sleep-in workers (regulation 32(2) of the 2015 regulations/regulation 15(1) or, later, regulation 15(1A) of the 1999 regulations) is quite clear. The basic proposition is that they are not doing time work for the purposes of the NMW if they are not awake. However, the regulations go further than that and state that not only are they not doing time work if they are asleep: they are also not doing time work unless they are awake for the purposes of working. So, it is necessary to look at the arrangements between the employer and the worker to see what the worker is required to do when not asleep but within the hours of the sleep-in shift.
...
51. It will be apparent that several previous cases, such as British Nursing , have held that workers who were or might have been on night shifts are performing work (as opposed to being available to work) throughout the shift and that they are therefore outside the special rules in regulations 15(1) (later 15(1A)) of the 1999 regulations and 32(2) of the 2015 regulations.
...
55. I agree with the interpretation given by Underhill LJ in para 77, namely that it was inconsistent with the regulations to say that a person was working during a night shift when he was positively expected to be asleep throughout all or most of the relevant period. This holding represents the culmination of his reasoning process and his interpretation in para 43 of his judgment in terms of logic and grammar alone (which I have summarised in para 52 of this judgment) marks merely a preliminary stage in his reasoning process. This interpretation gives weight to the recommendation on sleep-in shifts in the First Report of the LPC, set out at para 12 above.
56. In consequence, I too, like the Court of Appeal, would overrule Burrow Down (see para 32 above). In addition, I would overrule British Nursing . I have summarised the decision in that case in paras 28 to 30 above. The fundamental feature of the case is that the employment tribunal held that the employees were working, and not merely available for work, throughout their nightshifts even during the periods when they were expected to be sleeping and calls which they had to answer were infrequent. In their concurring judgments on this appeal, Lord Carnwath, with whom Lord Wilson agrees, and Lord Kitchin all consider that it was not open to the employment tribunal to make such a finding and therefore the Court of Appeal was in error in accepting it. I agree. What is less clear, however, is how an appellate tribunal should have dealt with the case, given that regulation 15 contained the home exception. We had little assistance on this in submissions. Lord Carnwath and Lord Wilson do not think it appropriate to be drawn into this area. Lord Kitchin takes the view that the employment tribunal could not rely on regulation 3 (meaning of time work) and conclude that the employees were working throughout the night shift simply because they fell within an exception to regulation 15. I agree. The EAT seems to have thought that if the employees had to be available to take any calls during the night, they would be working as opposed to available for work (para 23), but, as these appeals show, that cannot be the test.
...
67. Mr Jones urges on us that we should take into account the fact that, by performing her sleep-in shift, Mrs Tomlinson-Blake enabled Mencap to perform its contractual obligations to the local authority which in turn was thereby able to discharge its statutory obligations. I would be prepared to accept that there would have been regulatory or other duties on the employer in the context of care provision to continue care provision overnight. In addition, Mr Jones’ argument is supported by an example given in a document entitled National Minimum Wage - Calculating the Minimum Wage issued by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in February 2015 (see p 31) as follows:
“A person works in a care home and is required to work overnight shifts where they sleep on the premises. The person’s employer is required by statute to have someone on premises for health and safety purposes. The person would be disciplined if they left the premises at any stage during the night. It is likely that the person would be considered to be ‘working’ for the whole of the overnight shift even when they are sleeping.”68. However, this document is not an aid to interpretation of the regulations (the 2015 regulations had not then been laid before Parliament), and merely reflects the opinion of the Department at that time. No doubt that opinion was based on the cases which had then been decided. Accordingly, I do not consider that that document assists the Court on these appeals.
...
70. Mr Jones submits that even when asleep Mrs Tomlinson-Blake had to have a “listening ear” but like the Court of Appeal I do not consider that having a listening ear leads to the conclusion that she was working for NMW purposes. A worker must travel from home to the employer’s place of business, but it does not automatically follow that the travelling time falls within the calculation of hours for the purposes of the NMW.
71. Mr Jones also submits that the multifactorial test adumbrated by Simler P should be reinstated to determine whether a worker was working by simply being present, but there is no call to do so under my interpretation of the regulations. That test would introduce a considerable amount of uncertainty into the NMW rights of the sleep-in worker, a point emphasised by Mr David Reade QC on behalf of Mencap and by Ms Anne Redston on behalf of the intervener. That would be undesirable and not in the interests of either party to the arrangement.
Lord Carnwath (with Lord Wilson) agreed, and that British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue should no longer be regarded as an authoritative, but on the ground that the Court of Appeal could not properly have concluded that the employees were working for the whole of their shifts, and that it is unnecessary to consider the treatment of particular activities within that period [82].
Lord Kitchin agreed, and British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue further illustrates how a failure to interpret the relevant regulations as a whole can lead to error.
United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK have a minimum set of employment rights, from Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £11.44 for over-23-year-olds from April 2023 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995. Workers must be able to vote for trustees of their occupational pensions under the Pensions Act 2004. In some enterprises, such as universities or NHS foundation trusts, staff can vote for the directors of the organisation. In enterprises with over 50 staff, workers must be negotiated with, with a view to agreement on any contract or workplace organisation changes, major economic developments or difficulties. The UK Corporate Governance Code recommends worker involvement in voting for a listed company's board of directors but does not yet follow international standards in protecting the right to vote in law. Collective bargaining, between democratically organised trade unions and the enterprise's management, has been seen as a "single channel" for individual workers to counteract the employer's abuse of power when it dismisses staff or fix the terms of work. Collective agreements are ultimately backed up by a trade union's right to strike: a fundamental requirement of democratic society in international law. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 strike action is protected when it is "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute".
The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 creates a minimum wage across the United Kingdom. From 1 April 2024, the minimum wage is £11.44 for people aged 21 and over, £8.60 for 18- to 20-year-olds, and £6.40 for 16- to 17-year-olds and apprentices.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.
Minimum wage law is the body of law which prohibits employers from hiring employees or workers for less than a given hourly, daily or monthly minimum wage. More than 90% of all countries have some kind of minimum wage legislation.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 29 U.S.C. § 203 (FLSA) is a United States labor law that creates the right to a minimum wage, and "time-and-a-half" overtime pay when people work over forty hours a week. It also prohibits employment of minors in "oppressive child labor". It applies to employees engaged in interstate commerce or employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage. The Act was enacted by the 75th Congress and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938.
Indian labour law refers to law regulating labour in India. Traditionally, the Indian government at the federal and state levels has sought to ensure a high degree of protection for workers, but in practice, this differs due to the form of government and because labour is a subject in the concurrent list of the Indian Constitution. The Minimum Wages Act 1948 requires companies to pay the minimum wage set by the government alongside limiting working weeks to 40 hours. Overtime is strongly discouraged with the premium on overtime being 100% of the total wage. The Payment of Wages Act 1936 mandates the payment of wages on time on the last working day of every month via bank transfer or postal service. The Factories Act 1948 and the Shops and Establishment Act 1960 mandate 15 working days of fully paid vacation leave and 7 casual leaves each year to each employee, with an additional 7 fully paid sick days. The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 gives female employees of every company the right to take 6 months' worth of fully paid maternity leave. It also provides for 6 weeks worth of paid leaves in case of miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy. The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and the Employees' State Insurance, governed by statutory acts provide workers with necessary social security for retirement benefits and medical and unemployment benefits respectively. Workers entitled to be covered under the Employees' State Insurance are also entitled to 90 days worth of paid medical leaves. A contract of employment can always provide for more rights than the statutory minimum set rights. The Indian parliament passed four labour codes in the 2019 and 2020 sessions. These four codes will consolidate 44 existing labour laws. They are: The Industrial Relations Code 2020, The Code on Social Security 2020, The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 and The Code on Wages 2019.
The Employment Act 2008 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which reformed a wide range of different provisions of UK labour law. It is an amending statute, and therefore simply altered pre-existing law to remedy perceived problems in the law's operation to do with dispute resolution, strengthen enforcement of the minimum wage and employment agency standards and to conform with updated case law on trade unions, in particular, ASLEF v United Kingdom.
The Working Time Regulations 1998 is a statutory instrument in UK labour law which implemented the EU Working Time Directive 2003. It was updated in 1999, but these amendments were then withdrawn in 2006 following a legal challenge by the European Court. It does not extend to Northern Ireland.
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Annabel's Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 361 is a UK labour law case regarding the treatment of tips under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It led to the abolition of tips being considered part of wages for the purpose of assessing compliance with the national minimum wage.
Intern Aware is the United Kingdom national campaign for fair internships, founded in 2010. Working closely in cooperation with businesses, trade bodies and trade unions, they aim to help employers develop high quality internship schemes with recruitment based on merit, and payment that complies with employment law. They also work with interns to ensure they receive the pay they are potentially entitled to by law.
MacCartney v Oversley House Management [2006] IRLR 514 is a UK labour law case regarding the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue[2002] EWCA Civ 494 is a UK labour law case regarding the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
Scottbridge Construction Ltd v Wright [2002] ScotCS 285 is a UK labour law case regarding the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services Ltd (2006) C-131/04 is a European labour law and UK labour law case concerning the Working Time Directive, which is relevant for the Working Time Regulations 1998.
British Airways plc v Williams (2011) C-155/10 is a UK labour law and EU law decision by the European Court of Justice regarding the right to holidays with pay, which is found in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights article 24, the Working Time Directive and the Working Time Regulations 1998. Williams itself was decided under analogous rules found in the Civil Aviation Regulations 2004. It held that variable components in pay, such as bonuses, must be included in the amount of pay people receive while they are on holiday.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals. It confirmed the view, also taken by the Court of Appeal, that the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account when deciding whether a person counts as an employee, to get employment rights. As Lord Clarke said,
the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem.
France v James Coombes & Co [1929] AC 496 is an old UK labour law case, concerning the definition of ‘employee’ for the purpose of section 8 of the Trade Boards Act 1909 and the Trade Boards Act 1918.
The National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 were passed as a statutory instrument under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to specify various detailed points about how to calculate whether someone is being paid the minimum wage, who gets it, and how to enforce it.
Russell v Transocean International Resources Ltd [2011] UKSC 57 is a UK labour law case, concerning the interpretation of the Working Time Directive. It is notable that Lord Hope remarked that the right to paid holidays is probably best interpreted as requiring that workers may take a whole week at a time, rather than individual days.
Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers.