In Grange v Abellio London Limited, the Claimant, Mr Grange, who had been employed by Abellio for 5 years, brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal alleging that Abellio had breached regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (“WTR”) by refusing to provide him with rest breaks.  [By way of reminder, workers are entitled to unpaid rest break of 20 minutes when working for more than 6 hours a day].  This was dismissed at first instance on the basis that there was no claim in the absence of a deliberate act of refusal by Abellio.

Mr Grange successfully appealed to the EAT, with the EAT finding that the employer’s refusal did not have to amount to an active step – the arrangement of the working day could amount to the denial of the right.  The case was remitted to the Tribunal to establish whether as a matter of fact rest breaks had been denied.

The Tribunal found there were 14 days in which Abellio was in breach of regulation 12.   Mr Grange also provided evidence that due to a medical condition involving his bowel (which Abellio knew about), the lack of rest breaks had caused discomfort that was more than a minor inconvenience.  Accordingly, the Tribunal made an award of £750 to Mr Grange on a just and equitable basis.

Abellio appealed this decision arguing that the Tribunal was not permitted to make an award of damages for personal injury in these circumstances and £750 was excessive.

The EAT found that the Tribunal was permitted to make an award of damages for personal injury and given that the objective of the Working Time Directive is to protect the health and safety of the worker, it was natural that the Working Time Regulations allowed for such to be made.  The EAT rejected Abellio’s claim that the award was excessive and made without rigorous assessment.  It was held that Tribunals should be empowered to deal with low value cases on a common-sense basis, without the need for medical evidence, especially given the costs involved in obtaining the same. Mr Grange had both given evidence and been cross-examined in respect of his medical condition and, therefore, there was no need to interfere with the award which had been granted.

Comment: This case potentially opens the door to claimants seeking personal injury damages where they have been denied rest breaks and where they can show they have suffered more than a minor inconvenience as a result.  It is not known whether this decision is being appealed but the question as to whether or not injury to feelings awards (previously not permitted under the Working Time Regulations) are in fact related to personal injury awards is one that is rife to be addressed.

• Share this blog

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Linkedin