Cases3312322/2023

Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

25 July 2025Before Employment Judge CoddWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Working Time Regulationssucceeded

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

RJ v Stadt Offenbach am Main [2021] ICR 1109Landeshauptstadt Kiel v JaegerDJ v Radiotelevizija Slovenija [2021] ICRVille de Nivelles v Matzak [2018] ICR 869Crawford v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 269

Statutes

Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 24Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 21Working Time Regulations 1998 Regulation 10

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