Cases2303339/2024

Claimant v Strada Care Limited

13 March 2025Before Employment Judge Musgrave-CohenLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Working Time Regulationsfailed

Claimant worked in a residential care home for vulnerable adults. Tribunal found his work fell within regulation 21(c)(i) WTR exclusions, so regulation 10 daily rest did not apply. Under regulation 24, employer must allow equivalent compensatory rest. On the three dates within time limit (26 Nov, 2 Dec, 4 Dec 2023), tribunal found the respondent did allow equivalent compensatory rest through longer breaks after shorter breaks, averaging out to adequate rest periods.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

Claimant alleged dismissal under s.101A ERA for refusing to work in breach of WTR. Tribunal found claimant had not refused or proposed to refuse to work in breach of WTR. His expressions of tiredness on 28 Oct and 8 Nov 2023 did not amount to refusing to work in breach of WTR or forgo rights. Tribunal accepted respondent's evidence that the reason for dismissal was gross misconduct: claimant intentionally went to sleep while on a waking night shift, putting vulnerable service users at risk.

Facts

Claimant was an overseas sponsored support worker in a residential care home for vulnerable adults from May to December 2023. He regularly worked night shifts and voluntary overtime, sometimes resulting in less than 11 hours rest between shifts. He raised concerns about tiredness with his manager in October and November 2023. On 11 December 2023, he was found intentionally asleep on duty during a waking night shift, having set up a makeshift bed. He was dismissed for gross misconduct on 15 December 2023 after a disciplinary process, and the appeal was dismissed on 27 December 2023.

Decision

Tribunal dismissed all claims. Working Time Regulations claims failed on time limits (most breaches were before 26 Nov 2023) and on merits: the tribunal found the employer did allow equivalent compensatory rest under regulation 24 WTR by providing longer breaks after shorter ones. Automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because claimant had not refused or proposed to refuse to work in breach of WTR, and the tribunal accepted the real reason for dismissal was gross misconduct (intentionally sleeping on duty).

Practical note

Employers in care settings can satisfy WTR compensatory rest requirements through flexible shift patterns that average out to adequate rest, but must actively monitor compliance rather than relying on informal arrangements or employee goodwill.

Legal authorities cited

Grange v Abellio London Ltd [2017] ICR 287Ajayi v Aitch Care Homes (London) Ltd [2012] ICR D22Carter v Prestige Nursing Ltd UKEAT/0014/12Miles v Linkage Community Trust Ltd [2008] IRLR 602Scottish Ambulance Service v Truslove UKEATS/0028/11Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Jaeger [2004] ICR 1528Hughes v Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd (No.2) [2011] IRLR 915

Statutes

Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 21Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 10Employment Rights Act 1996 s.101AWorking Time Regulations 1998 reg 30Working Time Regulations 1998 reg 24

Case details

Case number
2303339/2024
Decision date
13 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Support Worker (Overseas Sponsored)
Service
8 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No