This blog is getting a little minimum wage-centric at the moment, but there’s a recent EAT case that re-emphasises what must, by now, be well settled law. Mrs Hughes worked in a care home, which provided her with a flat on-site. In return for a Â£150 per month rent subsidy, she was required to be on call for any emergencies that occurred, apart from when she was on annual leave. Furthermore, the provision and occupation of the flat were terms of the employment contract.
This type of arrangement is common, and furthermore is very useful. Many care homes are too small to employ sufficient waking night staff to deal with all situations that might arise. Mrs Hughes was called out around twice each month. Relations must have soured however, as she raised a grievance. Her employer’s response was to pay her for the time she was working during the call outs. However, whether due to this grievance or a further deterioration in the relations, they served notice to quit from the flat. This was constructive dismissal, so closely were the flat occupation and employment relationship tied.
She also brought actions claiming that she should be entitled to National Minimum Wage for the on call periods (9pm to 8am), and breach of her Working Time Regulations entitlements to rest breaks every six hours, and daily rest breaks. She won on most points: it has been established since the ECJ cases of SIMAP and Jaeger (all about junior doctors) that if you’re required to be on the premises then it’s working time, even if you’re asleep. The NMW is only payable when you’re awake. For a similar decision with a hotel caretaker required to stay in the hotel on some nights, see this case.
The present case of Hughes v Jones & Anor  UKEAT can be foundÂ here, and the law is certainly correctly interpreted, but it’s a shame that employing live-in on call staff is effectively rendered impossible by the WTR.