Blakley v South Eastern Health & Social Services Trust [2009] NICA 62 (14 December 2009)

Blakley v South Eastern Health & Social Services Trust [2009] NICA 62 (14 December 2009)

The ad hoc arrangement for compensatory rest did not breach Regulation 24 as there was no evidence the claimant was denied rest; only time actually spent providing services during on-call periods constitutes working time; and the claimant suffered no unlawful deduction of wages as he was paid his contractual entitlement.

Citation
[2009] NICA 62
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Samuel Blakley; Respondent/appellant: South Eastern Health and Social Services Trust
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
14 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Case Stated From Industrial Tribunal / Appeal Before Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Tribunal's decision overturned.
Legal Topics
Working Time Regulations, Compensatory Rest, On Call Work, Unlawful Deduction of Wages
Employment Law Labour Law European Union Law Working Time Regulations Compensatory Rest On Call Work Unlawful Deduction of Wages

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Blakley

Claimant/respondent

South Eastern Health and Social Services Trust

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Case Stated From Industrial Tribunal / Appeal Before Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ad hoc arrangement for compensatory rest constituted adequate compensatory rest under Regulation 24 of the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998
  2. 2 Whether all time spent 'on call' constituted 'working time' under Regulation 2 of the 1998 Regulations
  3. 3 Whether the claimant suffered unlawful deductions from wages

Ratio Decidendi

The ad hoc arrangement for compensatory rest did not breach Regulation 24 as there was no evidence the claimant was denied rest; only time actually spent providing services during on-call periods constitutes working time; and the claimant suffered no unlawful deduction of wages as he was paid his contractual entitlement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Tribunal's decision overturned.

Orders

  • Each of the three questions posed by the Tribunal answered 'No'.
  • Appeal by the Trust allowed.