• City of Edinburgh Council v Lauder

  •  
  • 8 Jun 2012
  • Comments 5 comments
The EAT has ruled on whether on-call time, during which workers are allowed to sleep until required to work, should count as working hours for National Minimum Wage purposes.

The facts
The case concerned wardens whose main duties were looking after elderly or vulnerable people resident in the City of Edinburgh’s sheltered accommodation. The wardens were contracted to work 36 core hours a week between 8:30 am and 5:30 pm, Monday to Friday. In addition to this, they were required to be ‘on call’ four nights per week, between midnight and 8:30 am, to deal with emergencies. While on call but not actually working, the wardens could use the time as they wished – for example, to sleep. The council provided the wardens with suitable on-site accommodation, fitted with an alarm system to allow residents to call them out during the night if required.

The employer paid the wardens for their core hours, and also paid them, or gave them time off in lieu, for any time they were actually called out by a resident during on-call nights. It did not pay them for time spent on call but not actually working.

The claim
The wardens claimed they were being paid less than the National Minimum Wage. They argued that, because they were required to remain at their accommodation on call for four nights a week, those on-call hours were working hours. Taking the on-call hours into account, they were paid less than they were entitled to under the minimum wage laws.

The ET and EAT
The employment tribunal agreed with the wardens, ruling that the hours spent on call were working hours, so the employer should pay the wardens the minimum wage for them. The EAT disagreed with the tribunal and agreed with the employer. Simply being on call did not mean the wardens were entitled to be paid as if they were working, unless they were actually awake for the purpose of working during their on-call hours.

Conclusion
Hours spent on call that are part of a worker’s core hours should usually be taken into account for National Minimum Wage purposes. However, where on-call hours do not form part of the worker’s core hours, and the worker does not have to remain awake during on-call time, those on-call hours will not count for minimum wage purposes.


Paul Mander is a partner and Charlotte Stafford a solicitor at Penningtons Solicitors LLP
Add Comment






  • I have read and accepted the terms and conditions
    These comments are moderated. Your comment, if approved, may not appear immediately.

  • Post
Comment List
Comments (5)
  • This flies completely in the face of other cases like Hughes v Jones and Jones t/a Graylyns Residential Home, and MacCartney v Oversley House Management and I can't see how the material facts of those cases were significantly different from City of Edinburgh Council v Lauder. Clearly the law is in a mess on this, and ETs and EATs are ruling differently for no apparent reason.<br/><br/>A definitive legal ruling is required here before we all find ourselves in an ET one way or another!<br/><br/>Guy Sargeant

  • I believe that this is a common sense result for the many smaller businesses who need someone to be on-call at night, but don't actually need that person to do anything other than respond to a call-out. Often these businesses on particularly tight margins such as small hotels and care-homes where the additional burden of paying someone to stay overnight would almost certainly send them out of business. I've had this very question levelled at me a number of times and it's good to have a definitive answer.

  • You HAVE to be at work, but we're not going to pay you... hmmm.. where do I apply..?  Any volunteers to sleep in their offices for no additional pay, completely at the beck and call of others at any hour? Anyone?

  • I hoesntly couldn't agree more with Dan. 100%

  • A ridiculous decision.  If a worker has to be at a certain place, for a certain length of time, on a rota defined and controlled by their employer, that is clearly not their own time to do as they wish.  It is like saying a prisoner in custody isn't actually a prisoner, or in custody, when they are asleep.  Prisoners are free to do as they wish (including sleep), within the 'four corners' not just of the physical prison, but the rules of the prison, but are no point can it be said they are not prisoners.  If the wardens, when on call, MUST be at a special accomodation, for a specified period of time, then they are under the control of their employer and ARE working.  Prehaps the chaps and chapettes at the EAT hadn't had a good night's sleep themselves that night, hence the lack of usual clarity of thinking.