Rest breaks

Workers are entitled to a rest break where they work more than six hours in a day (Regulation 12). This must be an uninterrupted period of at least 20 minutes away from any workstation. An EAT has held that there is no statutory right to a second 20-minute break after 12 hours’ work (The Corps of Commissionaires Management v Hughes UKEAT/0196/08/CEA). The break must be taken during, rather than at the start or end of, the working time.

Young workers are entitled to a rest break of at least 30 minutes, which should be consecutive if possible, where the daily working time is more than four-and-a-half hours.

Where the pattern of work is such as to put the health and safety of workers at risk, particularly if the work is monotonous or the work rate is predetermined, the employer must ensure that workers get adequate rest breaks (Regulation 8). In these circumstances, employers should give more regular breaks than the minimum required by law. There are additional rules about rest breaks for display screen (VDU) users (see Chapter 7, Work equipment).

In Carter v Prestige Nursing Limited UKEAT/0014/12/ZT, the EAT reached the surprising conclusion that there can be no breach of the statutory duty to provide daily or weekly rest or rest breaks under the Working Time Regulations unless the worker has attempted to exercise those rights, for example by lodging a grievance about the employer’s failure to allow rest breaks and the employer has refused to allow the rights to be exercised. The case followed an earlier decision — Miles v Linkage Community Trust [2008] IRLR 602. In Miles, a new shift pattern imposed by the employer meant that the claimant could no longer take his statutory rest break. In his tribunal claim, he was only allowed to pursue compensation for breaks denied him after lodging his grievance complaining about the practice, and not for the earlier period after the shift change was imposed.

In the Carter case, the claimant, a live-in carer, lost her claim for failure to provide rest breaks because she could not show that she had actively asked to take breaks and been turned down. This conclusion rests on wording in regulation 30 which provides a remedy where the employer has “refused to permit” the worker to exercise the right. This unfortunate interpretation defeats the aim of the Working Time Directive, which is to ensure employers provide adequate rest for their workers.