Cases6009169/2025

Claimant v DRS Kent Limited

26 September 2025Before Employment Judge KightLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Breach of Contractfailed

The tribunal found that clause 9 of the contract did not entitle the claimant to additional holidays beyond his annual entitlement. Rather, the claimant was entitled to take another day off instead of the bank holiday worked. The holiday records showed the claimant took his full contractual entitlement each year, including alternative dates for bank holidays worked.

Working Time Regulationsfailed

The tribunal found no evidence that the respondent refused to permit the claimant to take his rest breaks. The working arrangements enabled staff to take 20-minute uninterrupted rest breaks away from their workstation. The claimant chose when to take breaks and where to take them, often choosing to remain at his desk. The respondent had not put in place arrangements that prevented breaks being taken.

Facts

The claimant worked as a call handler for a 24/7 vehicle recovery service from March 2023 to March 2025, working 12-hour night shifts on a 4-on 4-off rotation. He claimed he was entitled to additional holiday days for each bank holiday worked beyond his annual entitlement of 19.5 days, and that he was not permitted to take one-hour rest breaks during his shifts. The claimant worked with at least one other colleague (a controller) on each shift, took smoking breaks regularly, and often spent break time at his desk eating or doing university work. He only raised concerns about breaks on 2 March 2025, shortly before resigning on 13 March 2025.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed both claims. On the contract claim, the tribunal found that clause 9 did not provide additional holidays beyond the annual entitlement but allowed the claimant to take an alternative day off for bank holidays worked, which he did. On the rest breaks claim, the tribunal found the respondent had put in place working arrangements that enabled the claimant to take 20-minute uninterrupted breaks away from his workstation, and that he chose to remain at his desk during breaks.

Practical note

Employers in 24/7 operations can satisfy their Working Time Regulations obligations by ensuring adequate staffing to enable breaks to be taken, even if the worker chooses not to take full breaks away from their workstation or does not raise concerns until shortly before resignation.

Legal authorities cited

Harlow v Artemis International Corporation Ltd [2008] IRLR 629Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896Grange v Abellio London Ltd [2017] ICR 287Gallagher v Alpha Catering Services Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1559Dean and Dean Solicitors v Dionissious-Moussaoui [2011] EWCA Civ 1331

Statutes

Working Time Regulations 1998 Reg 30(1)(a)Working Time Regulations 1998 Reg 12(1)

Case details

Case number
6009169/2025
Decision date
26 September 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
Call handler
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No