Cases1801478/2023

Claimant v Humberside Police

10 February 2025Before Employment Judge D N Jonesremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Working Time Regulationssucceeded

Tribunal held that the entirety of on-call standby periods constituted working time under Regulation 2(1) of Working Time Regulations 1998. Claimants were required to remain at or very near home, respond immediately to calls, and could not meaningfully devote time to personal interests due to combination of geographical restriction, frequency of call-outs (42% of shifts), immediate response requirement, and the serious nature of the work.

Breach of Contractnot determined

Claims for refusal to permit exercise of daily rest breaks under Regulations 10 and 30 WTR and unauthorised deductions from wages were brought but not determined at this preliminary hearing. The tribunal resolved only the threshold issue of whether on-call time was working time.

National Minimum Wagewithdrawn

Withdrawn by claimants

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesnot determined

Claims for unauthorised deductions in respect of time spent on call were brought but not fully determined. Extent to which these survive withdrawal of national minimum wage claims unclear and left for future hearing.

Facts

Multiple police staff employed as Single Points of Contact (SPoCs) in Covert Authorities Bureau worked core hours Monday-Friday 07:00-16:00, plus on-call standby shifts of 12 or 24 hours. When on call, they were paid standby allowance plus hourly rates when called out. They handled communications data requests for threat-to-life and serious crime situations requiring immediate response. Evidence showed they were called out on 42% of standby shifts for average 2-6 hours' work, were required to remain at or very near home, respond immediately, abstain from alcohol, and could not meaningfully engage in social activities. Dispute arose in 2022 over whether on-call time was working time.

Decision

Tribunal held that entire standby periods were working time under Working Time Regulations 1998. The combination of factors — requirement to remain at/near home, immediate response obligation, frequency of call-outs, unpredictability, serious nature of work, and mental alertness required — objectively and very significantly restricted claimants' ability to use time for own interests. This crossed the threshold into working time despite no requirement to be at employer's workplace.

Practical note

On-call time can be working time even without requirement to be at the workplace if multiple restrictions combine to very significantly limit the worker's ability to use the time for their own purposes — particularly where immediate response is required, geographical restriction exists, and call-outs are frequent and unpredictable.

Legal authorities cited

Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (SIMAP) v Consellería de Sanidad [2001] ICR 1116, ECJArvunescu v Quick Release (Automotive) Limited [2023] ICR 271DJ v Radiotelevizija Slovenija [2021] ICR 11091, CJEUTruslove v Scottish Ambulance Service [2014] ICR 1232, EAT

Statutes

Working Time Regulations 1998 Reg 10Working Time Regulations 1998 Reg 2(1)European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 s.6(2)Investigatory Powers Act 2016Working Time Regulations 1998 Reg 30

Case details

Case number
1801478/2023
Decision date
10 February 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
emergency services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Covert Authorities Bureau Staff (Specialist Commander) / Single Point of Contact (SPoC)

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister