Sleepovers and the NMW – clarity at last for the UK care sector

The Court of Appeal handed down its much anticipated judgment on Friday last week in the joined cases of Royal Mencap v Thompson Blake and John Shannon v Jakishan and Prithee Rampersad (t/a Clifton House Residential Home). The decision provides much-needed clarity on whether workers are entitled to the national minimum wage for each hour during “sleepover shifts”.

Previous case law stated that this determination could only be made by applying a “multifactorial” approach which, in the words of Lord Justice Underhill, was “hard to understand” and created much uncertainty for employers (particularly within the hard-pressed care sector which it was estimated would be required to cough up an eye-watering £400million in back pay should each hour of a sleepover shift count as working time for NMW purposes).

One of the more complicated aspects of the NMW Regulations 2015 is the differentiation made between “types” of worker which impacts the assessment of what amounts to working time for NMW purposes. The Mencap judgment is particularly useful as it deals with the position on sleepover shifts for both time workers and salaried workers (this was necessary since the workers in the case were said to be time workers whereas the workers in Shannon were said to be salaried). The judgment also deals obiter with the position in respect of unmeasured workers.

Actual work vs availability for work

In coming to its decision, the Court noted the similarity between the provisions of the 2015 National Minimum Wage Regulations for time workers and salaried workers in this area (Regulations 32 and 27 respectively).  In line with the legislation, it drew a distinction between “actual work” and “availability for work”.  In “availability for work” cases, the Court noted the “sleep-in exception” provided for in the same terms at Regulations 27 (2) and 32(2) which states “hours when a worker is available only includes hours when the worker is awake for the purposes of working, even if a worker by arrangement sleeps at or near a place of work and the employer provides suitable facilities for sleeping”. 

In his judgment, Lord Justice Underhill concluded that sleepers-in (where a worker is contractually obliged to spend the night at or near their workplace on the basis that they are expected to sleep for all or most of the period but may be woken if required to undertake some specific activity) are to be characterised as “available for work” rather than actually working and so fall within the sleep-in exception above. He noted that “the result is that the only time that counts for NMW purposes is time when the worker is required to be awake for the purposes of working”.

The importance of the decision cannot be undersold as it means that a number of previous cases on this point (Esparon v Slavikovska [2014], Whittlestone v BJP Support [2013] and Burrow Down Support Services Ltd v Rossiter [2008]) have all been wrongly decided. Lord Underhill did not hold back in criticising previous decisions made on the point, pointing out the “basic artificiality of describing someone as working – still more, as actually working – during a shift when it is positively expected that they will spend substantially the whole time asleep”.

Expectation of sleep vs permitted to sleep

It is clear from Mencap that the fundamental feature of a sleep-in arrangement is the expectation that the worker will sleep for the shift, unless woken for work (at which point the clock would start ticking for NMW working time purposes). This is essential as it allowed the case to be distinguished from the leading Court of Appeal case of British Nursing Association v Inland Revenue in 2002. This found that nursing staff were at work (rather than available for work) throughout the entirety of their shift when delivering an emergency-bank-nurse booking service whilst at home.

In determining that the nurses were “working” throughout the period, the key factors were that (i) the nurses were performing the same work as those nurses on day shifts; and (ii) whilst the nurses were permitted to sleep during periods of slack time, it was not the expectation that they would do so. Lord Justice Underhill noted about the case: “the decision certainly establishes that the fact a worker is entitled to go to sleep in the intervals between particular tasks is not necessarily inconsistent with them actually working during the entirety of the period”.

Going forward

As set out above, going forwards, the key question for employers when dealing with workers who may sleep during their shift, is whether the workers are either (a) working or (b) available for work. Key to this assessment is whether the worker is expected or permitted to sleep. Where a worker is expected to sleep, this clearly falls within the sleep-in arrangement in Mencap meaning pay is only due for NMW purposes during periods where the worker is awake in order to work. Where workers have specific tasks to fulfil but are otherwise permitted to sleep, this falls more clearly within the British Nursing Association rule, meaning the workers are working throughout the shift for NMW purposes.

Employers should try to make the position clear in staff contracts of employment, probably by reference to when the work being done on the shift arises. If you arrive to a certain set of tasks but are permitted a nap when they are completed, that is a different situation from arriving with little or nothing specific to be done but having to wake up to deal with anything new which arises mid-sleep.

Unmeasured workers

In contrast to the position for time workers and salaried workers, the Court noted that the Regulations concerning unmeasured workers do not contain “availability to work” provisions.

Nevertheless, many care providers have taken advantage of this type of working arrangement as it allows an agreement to be reached as to the average daily number of hours that a worker is likely to spend carrying out duties required under the contract. Provided the average agreed is realistic, it will apply for NMW purposes even if the actual number is slightly different.

Employers which operate daily average agreements will be pleased that the Court’s ruling here does not affect that arrangement, as it can be a useful way of providing certainty for both parties as to the pay due to a worker.

Final note

Whether this decision is appealed by the individuals involved is yet to be seen. However we hope (for clarity’s sake) that it is not.

Reducing UK holiday pay principles to individual contract terms

Holiday PayHere is a new case which you think initially might be quite helpful on the calculation of holiday pay, but which then suddenly veers off into the contractual undergrowth, and actually isn’t.  However, what it does do is administer a sharp lesson about the wisdom of trying to incorporate broad principles into individual employment contracts.

In Flowers and Others –v – East of England Ambulance Trust the EAT had to consider whether voluntary overtime should be included in the calculation of holiday pay, i.e. overtime which the employer was not obliged to offer and the employee was under no obligation to do.  It had to consider this from two perspectives, the underlying Working Time Directive requirement and the terms of the relevant employment contract.  These stated

Pay during annual leave will include regularly paid supplements including….payments for work outside normal working hours….Pay is calculated on the basis of what the individual would have received had he/she been at work.  This would be based on the previous three months at work…

Continue Reading

California’s New Candor: Disclosing Rehiring Ineligibility for Employees Terminated for Harassment

Your company did the right thing: One of your employees reported a violation of your company’s sexual harassment policy, HR did an investigation and found the report credible, and the alleged harasser’s employment was terminated.  The employee is gone, but what do you do if the terminated employee’s potential new employer calls for a reference check and asks if the employee is eligible for rehire?  You do not want to inflict a serial harasser on another company’s employees, but what can you say without risking potential exposure for claims of defamation? Continue Reading

NLRB Announces New Pilot ADR Program

On July 10, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced the launch of a new pilot program to enhance the use of its existing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program. Since 2005, the NLRB has offered assistance to parties in settling unfair labor practice matters pending before the Board through ADR procedures.  According to the agency’s website, mediators helping participants through the ADR program have reached settlements in about 60 percent of cases, and all of those settlements have been approved by the Board In its statement announcing the program, the NLRB said that the “new pilot program will increase participation opportunities for parties in the ADR program and help to facilitate mutually-satisfactory settlements. Allowing parties greater control over the outcome of their cases, the NLRB’s ADR program can provide parties with more creative, flexible and customized settlements of their disputes.”  Continue Reading

President Trump Nominates D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh for United States Supreme Court

If confirmed, the Court would have a solid pro-business, pro-employer majority

President Trump’s nomination on July 9, 2018 of District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court – President Trump’s second nominee in just a year and a half  – is likely to make the top U.S. court the most business- and employer-friendly it has been in decades.  A graduate of Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh served as a clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose retirement, announced just weeks ago, opened the seat that Judge Kavanaugh has been nominated to fill.  Judge Kavanaugh was White House Staff Secretary to President George W. Bush from 2003 to 2006, when President Bush nominated him for the federal appellate bench. Continue Reading

Sounding off or whistleblowing? – the Devil’s in the detail (UK)

How often have you had an employee make some vague and unspecific complaint about your “unlawful” or “improper” or “inappropriate” conduct (often among a welter of other gripes and grievances) only to find him later claiming protection as a whistle-blower. Is that sort of gripe really enough for him to gain that protection?

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban.

The Court addressed the legality of the Presidential Proclamation issued on September 24, 2017 entitled, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats. Continue Reading

Federal Court: Franchisors and Other Businesses Do Not Create Joint Employment Via “Brand Protection” and Indirect Control (US)

Earlier this decade, hardly a week passed without some court or agency interpreting the joint employment doctrine more expansively than before. Although the National Labor Relations Board created many of these headlines by attempting to treat McDonald’s as the joint employer of its franchisees’ employees and expanding its joint employment test, many courts and other agencies reached similar interpretations. These broad decisions raised particular concerns for franchisors and other businesses who rely on outside workers to interact with their customers. Continue Reading

US Supreme Court Strikes Down Fair Share Fees for Public Sector Unions

By Wm. Michael Hanna, Emily R. Spivack, and Dylan Yepez

On June 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that public sector unions may no longer collect so-called “fair share” fees from non-members.  The decision will have broad implications for public sector unions and employers.

Fair share fees are charged to individuals who fall within a bargaining unit, but choose not to join the union.  Typically, employers deduct the fees directly from employee paychecks and pay the money over to the union.  Fair share fees may only be used for activities “germane” to collective bargaining. The Court’s decision prohibits employers from continuing to withhold fair share fees.  Individuals who do not join their unions will no longer have to pay for representation. Continue Reading

New Acas guidance on UK overtime fluffs holiday pay advice (again)

Perhaps that is not really fair – Acas’ new guidance on overtime certainly does what it can to help employers on the vexed question of whether and how you take overtime into account for holiday pay purposes. However, it is held back from saying anything either new or useful because there haven’t been any developments in case law or statutory thinking in this regard which are, well, either new or useful.

Continue Reading