The Definition of Work in the Working Time Regulations 1998

hello and welcome to this weapon are in which we're going to look at the definition of working time in the working time regulations. 1998. We're going to start off by looking at the regulations himself, and we're looking at the definition of working time. We're then going Teoh Lick at some rulings, looking at the definition of working time. We're then going to look a working time and rest periods, and then we're going to work at two more recent rulings looking a working time on mobile workers. So let's start off by looking at what the definition of working time is in the working time. Regulations. 1998. When we find this definition in regulation to one off the working time regulations and it defines working time as follows any period during which he or she is working at the employers disposable disposal and carrying out his or her activity or duties any period during which he is receiving, he or she is receiving relevant training any additional period, which is treated as working time for the purposes off the regulations under a relevant agreement on When looking at the these bullet points, it's useful to look at the ruling off land A short shot kill first Hager 2000 and three on Just in case my pronunciation isn't as good as it could be. Let me just spell that first word for you. So that's L a N D E s a j u p t s t a d t keel k i e l vs Yeager 2003 on This is a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union about a number of doctors that were required to be on call at a health centre. And the question waas were they working whilst they were on cool? And what the Court of Justice ruled Waas that if they were on call on required to be present at the health center they were working. This was because they were at the employers disposal Andi By being on site at the health center, it could be argued that they were carrying out their duties and this applied even if they were allowed to rest or even sleep during the period there on duty because they had to be present at the health center. Then they were under the They were at the employers disposal, and the reason that they were required to remain at the health centre was because they were required to carry out their duties of providing this medical care if it was needed. However, if the doctors were on core, I'm not required to be present at the health center on their actually allowed to be at home, and they only had to go to the health center if they were called to do so. Then they were only working when they were actually called out. On this ruling is a very important because it's dis approach that we've seen in any other cases that have have come after it. So let's just go back to the key points of this case before we look at two others specifically relating to rest periods. So the individual has to be at the employers disposal. So this suggests that if an individual is allowed to be at home allowed to do what they want to do, then there no actually working. If they are allowed to leave the workplace, then they are working when they're actually contacted, but not at any other time on. It's interesting, just a this moment to before we carry on on delicate Cem and more case or to think about the issue of employees who look a e mails at home. We're about to move on and look it. Some cases relating to rest periods and whether employees getting their actual rest on what the working time regulations 1998 se is an individual is entitled to 20 minutes rest after six hours of work, 11 hours rest in any 24 hour period on 24 hours rest in a seven day period. Now what about my employees who gets up? Say, I'd know, let's say, half for six in the morning and the first thing they do is check their emails and maybe replying to some on. Then they do a day's work. They come home, they have that tea. They do whatever they do on maybe nine oclock at night. They go back onto their email and answer a few more. Now there are they getting the 11 hours rest in every 24 hour period possibly know, depending on when they're looking at those emails. Now, it could be argued that the employer has no awesome to look at those emails, it's a choice that they're doing it. Then there is no obligation on them to be looking at nine o'clock at night or heart six in the morning. It's not what the employer expects, but is it is that that pressure that suggests that Xenia management is sending out emails in the evening, and there's an expectation that will junior members of staff were responding to them. Other employees who are dealing with customers, clients, colleagues in different parts of the world and the time zone difference means that actually, they really do need to be on the end of email its particular time. But that is definitely something that employees should be thinking about because if it is working time on, why wouldn't it be? Because if you're asking a mount, you are working Europe, the employers disposal, you're carrying out the activities or duties. There's a required duty or employment. Then maybe individuals like that I'm not getting that rest periods. So it is an area that is worth just thinking about, and we started to think about rest periods. So let's carry on doing that by looking at the case of McCartney versus Oversleep, a House Management 2006. Now this was in employee who worked in a sheltered housing complex. She was a manager of the sheltered housing complex. She worked four days a week, and for those four days she was on call 24 hours a day. She then had three days off work, four days etcetera. When she was on call, she had to be within three miles off the sheltered housing. She was expected Teoh sleep the sheltered housing. She did have a room where she go with a bed. Andi. She only had to work during the night if somebody called her a needed her resistance. But she was expected to be available during those 4 24 hour periods, and she argued she wasn't going her rest. Entitlement Teoh. 11 hours rest in any 24 hour period on, she said right. Although the regular duties come to the end at the end of the working day, I'm still required to be at the employers disposal on by having to sleep the company premises. I'm actually carrying out the duties and activities of my job, and therefore I'm not getting the rest that the working time regulations 1990 say that I should get. And she was successful in the argument in the case of True Love and another vs a Scottish ambulance service 2014 in some ways not dissimilar argument. This was a case concerning a number of employees who worked as ambulance staff on. They were required to be on call through the night on to attend calls within three minutes on, because if the broader area that they were covering on because of this target to be it a call within three minutes, they had to stay at the ambulance location and they could sleep if there was no calls for them. But they had to be available, and they didn't receive any rest whilst the wrong call. And again they were successful in arguing that they were working on. Therefore they weren't receiving appropriate rest. So it raises another interesting question about the working time regulations that if we're saying that an employee is on call and has to stay in a particular location and going back to the ruling of the European Court of Justice that that we looked at first in this weapon are then they are working and therefore they're not getting their rest that they're entitled to receive. So that is a big issue that needs thinking about for employees who are remaining on cool. We then have an interesting point that's raised about mobile workers on this point was first raised in a Spanish case that was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015. On the name of the cases Federal, she under surface seals privatise Nelson Dick Arto Commissioners Cabrera's versus Tyco Integrated Security s L 2015. On If my pronunciation is letting yet again let me down on you do want Teoh to find the full ruling of this case. Search on Tycho T Y c O on that will bring the case up for you now. The employees in this case where 15 security systems on the way that they worked wears that at the start of the day, they were allocated their cases to some sort of electronic whole handheld gadget. So the crucial point waas they didn't have to go into the head office or a local de Po or anything like that. They basically worked from home so they would be allocated that jobs look at them. Okay, planetary on off. They get to the first job from home, get to the first job that do whatever they were allocated to do that move to their second job, presuming that it was time to do more than one in a day, goods the next job. Go to the next job. And then at the end of the day, when all the jobs were completed, they would travel home. And what they argued Waas that this time that was spend traveling from home to first job and then back home from the last job was working time for the purposes of the working time regulations. 1998. Because what they said, Waas Well, we have to get to the job, and therefore this is time when we were at the employers disposal on were carrying out the activities and GTE's that the employer wants us to do because the employer is asking us to go to these premises. Teoh install or maintain or whatever they were doing with these security systems. And the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in their favor favor and said Yes, they were working. Now it's important for as to look carefully at this case on, just understand a few key points. First of all, they were no going to company premises. So if they work differently on their requirement was to go to company premises, maybe turn up at half seven in the morning, uh, collect their list of jobs, collect the parts of tools, whatever it is that they needed to do the jobs on, then travel off to the first job. Then they wouldn't be working until they arrived at the company premises. Because if on individual is based on one location, then we are no working whilst travelling to it from the normal place of work. But these individuals, I didn't do that. They didn't go to a company location on therefore, that have to be a point at which they were starting work. And that was when they started off on their journey on. The other thing to note was when they were traveling between jobs, so traveling between the different jobs that were allocated to them, then that also was working time. So if we've got a mobile worker going back to our example, that does go to the company location at the start of the day, pick up the tools and equipment. Whatever it is they need, go to the first job. Then they are working once they arrive at the company premises on there, also working as they travel between the different jobs that allocated to them during the day. Because there's an integral part of their work, they've got to travel to get there. There are the employers disposal. They're doing their employees duties when they are traveling between these different jobs. Now there has also been a case in the UK, which is an interesting want to note because it raises the issue off payment. Andi In all of the cases that we've looked at so far, we've only been looking at the definition of work for the working time regulations. 1998. We haven't also been considering the question of work for purposes of the national minimum wage, and that is a separate chest in a separate issue. So if we take the Taiko case that we've just been looking at, that tells us that it's working time and therefore we need toe t. Consider this working time that whiles traveling from home to the first job when we're thinking is, well, how they work more than 48 hours a week when we're thinking of rest periods, but it doesn't address any point of pay. It wasn't something that was addressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Now, in the case of Vera East versus Valentine, 2017 a support worker was traveling from home to the first job back home from the last job without being required to attend company premises. During any of this time on, it was argued that he waas a working whilst traveling. Now the employment tribunal, in this case said right. We also need Teoh ensure rule that there has been a lawful deduction of wages because he's not been paid for this time. But the Employment Appeal Tribunal said no because they're a E. Valentine hadn't brought that argument. All he had been doing was asking, well, am I working for the purposes of the working time regulations? 1998. On In his claim to the employment tribunal, he didn't raise an issue about unlawful deductions and therefore the Employment tribunal couldn't add that in Teoh the ruling that they were making on it is important to know that in all of these cases that we've looked at here, the national minimum wage isn't initiate Now. That doesn't mean, however, that we can hide away from that point because what it does mean is on. It's a separate issue to the Webinar today that we need to go and look at the definition of work in the national minimum wage regulations. 1998 on question. If these people are working when they're traveling, then is it possible that they're working in terms off the national minimum wage and it show should re ensure that the paid that for each other they're working? But do be very clear. That is an issue that is subsidiary. It's something else to think about, but it wasn't dressed in any of these cases. So what is it that we need to be thinking about? Well, we need to go back to what the working time regulations 1998 se on. What they say is that nobody should work more than 48 hours a week. So if we do have employees who are being asked to remain on call or we have employees who are traveling from home. Then we need to check all the employees working for more than 48 hours. We can ask employees to sign an opt out from the 48 hours. If the employer does that, then records must be kept in the hours that the individuals are working. We must also remember that the 48 hours is reference is averaged over 17 weeks, reference period. So it is possible that an individual works more than 48 hours in one week lesson, another as long as over the 17 week reference period. They don't what more than that, we must also remember the rest periods, so workers are entitled at least 20 minutes. Break is the working days longer than six hours, 11 consecutive hours in every 24 hours on a minimum weekly rest period of 24 consecutive hours, although that can be 48 hours in a two week period. Andi, if individuals are working at night, we must remember the restrictions of night work. But there is limit off. An average of eight hours work in any 24 hour period that night. Workers can be required to work. I remember that night work is defined as 11 PM to six AM lists. The employer and the employee agree otherwise. If the employer and employee agree a different definition of night work, it must be a period that is no less than seven hours in length. It must include the normal hours of 12 midnight to five in the morning. On the night. Worker is someone who normally works at least three hours during night work, and what we must remember is that an employee or worker is working on at the employees disposal if they're at the employees disposal on, if they are carrying out the activity or fetus, that is part of the job or if they are receiving relevant trip training or during any additional period which is to be treated his work in time for the purpose of the regulations. Under a relevant agreement that has been reached between the employees on the employer