Since Burrow Down Support Services Ltd v Rossiter [2008] ICR 1172, the EAT had classified
sleep-in care workers as “working” (therefore requiring NMW adherence) rather than the “available for work” (meaning no requirement for NMW adherence - on the premise the worker was not fully performing the function requiring an individual to be just “on call”). The
Court of Appeal has now said Burrow Down and its successors were wrongly decided, and
placed sleep-in workers firmly on the “available for work” side of the line. Royal Mencap v
Tomlinson Blake [2018] EWCA Civ 1641.
In my opinion if you're not allowed to sleep in a bed at your own residence you are not using free will, you can not socialise with whom you want it should sit in the work side and attract NMW – the final decision is likely to be made by the Supreme Court. Either way this is likely to impact a number of businesses where sleep-in workers are required.
Comments