Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's stand-by period from 17:25pm to 01:00am constituted working time under the Working Time Regulations 1998 due to the frequency and unpredictability of calls, the 15-minute response requirement, and the significant constraints on his ability to pursue leisure activities. The respondent failed to provide adequate compensatory rest periods required under Regulation 24(a) and (b), despite having a legitimate exception under Regulation 21 to the standard rest break requirements.
Facts
The claimant was an Area Manager for HM Prison and Probation Service's Approved Premises. He worked a weekly on-call stand-by rota (approximately every 4 weeks) covering 17:00-09:00 weekdays and 24-hour periods at weekends, for which he received £418 per week. He had to respond to calls within 15 minutes and travel to premises within 1 hour if required. During the week of 27 March to 3 April 2023, he was regularly called to deal with high-risk offenders, process prison recalls, and manage incidents, with multiple calls extending late into the evening on most days. The claimant argued this stand-by time prevented him receiving his statutory 11-hour continuous rest breaks.
Decision
The tribunal found that the period from 17:25pm to 01:00am during stand-by constituted working time due to the frequency and unpredictability of calls, the constraints on the claimant's activities, and the requirement to respond within 15 minutes. While Regulation 21 provided an exception to the standard rest break requirements due to the continuity of service needs for managing high-risk offenders, the respondent breached Regulation 24 by failing to provide adequate compensatory rest periods. The claim succeeded with remedy to be determined at a separate hearing.
Practical note
Stand-by arrangements with frequent unpredictable calls and short response times can constitute working time even when the worker is at home, triggering compensatory rest obligations where statutory exceptions apply.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3312322/2023
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Area Manager (APAM) - Approved Premises
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister