Gallagher & Ors v Alpha Catering Services Ltd

Gallagher & Ors v Alpha Catering Services Ltd

The Court held that Regulation 21(c) must be construed as referring to the activities of the worker, not the employer, and that the employees' activities did not require continuity of service so as to exclude entitlement to rest breaks. Routine fluctuations in work did not amount to a surge of activity under Regulation 21(d), and downtime did not qualify as a rest break because the employees remained at the employer's disposal and could not use the time as they pleased.

Parties
Applicant/respondent: 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
Civil Appeal (employment) / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Working Time Regulations, Rest Breaks, Compensatory Rest, Interpretation of EU Directives, Employment Tribunal Jurisdiction
Employment Law Labour Law European Union Law Working Time Regulations Rest Breaks Compensatory Rest Interpretation of EU Directives Employment Tribunal Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JP Gallagher and others

Applicant/respondent

Alpha Catering Services Limited t/a Alpha Flight Services

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (employment) / 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
  2. 2 Whether routine fluctuations in work constitute 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 employees' activities did not require continuity of service so as to exclude entitlement to rest breaks. Routine fluctuations in work did not amount to a surge of activity under Regulation 21(d), and downtime did not qualify as a rest break because the employees remained at the employer's disposal and could not use the time as they pleased.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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