Gallagher & Ors v Alpha Catering Services Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1559 (08 November 2004)

Gallagher & Ors v Alpha Catering Services Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1559 (08 November 2004)

The Court held that Regulation 21(c) must be construed as referring to the activities of the worker, not the employer, and that the Employment Tribunal erred in focusing on the employer's activities. Routine fluctuations in work do not amount to a 'surge' under Regulation 21(d), and downtime where employees remain at the employer's disposal does not qualify as a rest break. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1559
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Mr JP Gallagher and Others; Respondent/appellant: Alpha Catering Services Limited t/a Alpha Flight Services
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Working Time Regulations, Rest Breaks, Derogations, Compensatory Rest, Interpretation of EU Directives
Employment Law European Union Law Working Time Regulations Rest Breaks Derogations Compensatory Rest Interpretation of EU Directives

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr JP Gallagher and Others

Appellant/respondent

Alpha Catering Services Limited t/a Alpha Flight Services

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulation 21(c) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 excludes the employees from entitlement to rest breaks under Regulation 12(1)
  2. 2 Whether routine fluctuations in work amount to a 'foreseeable surge of activity' under Regulation 21(d)
  3. 3 Whether downtime qualifies as a rest break under Regulation 12(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Regulation 21(c) must be construed as referring to the activities of the worker, not the employer, and that the Employment Tribunal erred in focusing on the employer's activities. Routine fluctuations in work do not amount to a 'surge' under Regulation 21(d), and downtime where employees remain at the employer's disposal does not qualify as a rest break. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs assessed at £9,717.25
  • Case remitted to the Croydon Employment Tribunal