Under the Working Time Regulations 1998, a worker is entitled to a rest period of 'not less than eleven consecutive hours in each 24-hour period during which he works for his employer'. However, there are exceptions, one of which is where the activities of the worker in question involve the need for continuity of service, such as when mobile workers carry passengers on regular urban transport services.
In the case of First Hampshire & Dorset Ltd. v Feist and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) examined the proper construction of the Working Time Regulations, as amended, with regard to rest breaks for such workers.
Mr Feist and his colleagues were employed as bus drivers by First Hampshire & Dorset Ltd. The question arose as to whether, on those occasions when their work involved daily rest periods of less than 11 hours in each 24-hour period, the drivers were entitled to adequate rest breaks only or whether they were also entitled to compensatory rest. The Employment Tribunal ruled that they were entitled to both.
The EAT, however, judged that the drivers were entitled to adequate rest in lieu of a fixed rest period but they were not entitled to compensatory rest as well.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
