After a satisfying hard day’s graft at work and having
successfully completed another torturously packed train journey home, it is
always a lovely feeling to be able to share the company of loved ones during an
evening. We get to have a hot shower, put on some comfy pyjamas and enjoy some
delicious dinner whilst binge-watching as many thrilling tv shows as possible.
However, some loved ones who work within the care sector, they have to be ‘available
for work’ and sleep at facilities provided by their employer. They are not
afforded the same flexibility or freedom, even though, like me, they have a
massive backlog of shows ready to be consumed. Having tried to pacify them many
a time during vociferous rants, I was extremely shocked to find out that they
were not remunerated properly for ‘sleep-in’ shifts and for every hour they
spent awake at work, and that they were earning less than the National Minimum
Wage (“NMW”).
Recently, the Court of
Appeal (CA) provided its much-anticipated decision in the case of Royal Mencap Society v. Tomlinson-Blake, with regards to the fraught issue of the
NMW in the “sleep-in” context. The landmark decision saw
the CA overturn the ruling of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which had
held that carers working sleep-in shifts were entitled to the NMW for every
hour of their shift, regardless of whether they were awake and carrying out
relevant duties, or asleep. In overturning this decision and a significant body
of case law, the CA has held that sleep-in workers are only entitled to the NMW
when they are awake and "actually working". They are not
entitled to the NMW when they are asleep, even if facilities for sleeping are
provided by the employer as they are then only "available for
work". So, it has removed minimum wage protections from
care and support workers on sleep-in shifts
As has
been emblematic in the care sector, Mrs Tomlinson-Blake received a flat rate
payment of £22.35 plus one hour's pay of £6.70 for a nine-hour-long sleep-in
shift. She contended that this pay fell below the NMW as, when accounting for
every hour spent at work, her wage equated to around just £3.23 per hour. The
EAT originally rejected Mencap's argument that Mrs Tomlinson-Blake was not
awake and carrying out her duties for the majority of her shift and was
therefore not entitled to remuneration for those hours.
This decision will also naturally be very disappointing for
individual care workers and to many, puts the sector even further away
from the position it desperately needs to be in, that of being able to offer
decent jobs and to stem the growing exodus of its workforce as opposed to now
potentially becoming a disaster for the sustainability of social care.
The latest
position from the CA is, of course subject to any further appeal to the Supreme
Court. Unison were granted permission to appeal in February 2019. This one
continues to rumble on. Until it concludes, I shall continue to mollify loved
ones on a daily basis and provide the sounding board they need to vent. Atif Tanvir - Morrish Solicitors
For further information on Employment Rights please visit our Website or call 0033 3344 9603 and ask to speak to our Employment Rights team.
No comments:
Post a Comment