The People Bulletin

In the case of Russell and others v Transocean a group of oil-rig workers who worked for two weeks offshore followed by a two week ‘field break’ onshore (they did not normally have to do any work, although they did occasionally have to undertake duties such as attending training courses), brought their claim to the Supreme Court arguing that their employers had denied them their minimum statutory holiday entitlement.  The issue was whether their annual leave should be out of their time offshore or, as their employers asserted, out of their field break onshore.

Background

An initial tribunal found in favour of the claimants, however at an appeal the EAT found that the periods during which the workers were onshore could be said to be annual leave. The Court of Session upheld the EAT decision – asserting that their time onshore fulfilled the employers’ obligations under the Working Time Directive, which at the time required the workers to be provided with at least four remunerated weeks of the weekly cycle in which he or she is free from work commitments in a 12 month period. The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that it should make a reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the meaning of ‘annual leave’ in the Working Time Directive.

The Supreme Court refused the workers' request for a reference to ECJ and dismissed their appeal. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court  has shown that a ‘rest period’ can count as any time that an employee isn’t working, regardless of where they are or what they are doing – hence the oil-rig workers may be required by their employer to take their paid annual leave during their field breaks.

Implications

The decision has a number of implications for employers. Perhaps the most significant of these is not just for the oil-rig industry but for employers in the education sector. It is generally accepted that employees in this area work during term time and take holidays during non-term, this decision confirms this pattern, had the outcome been different a precedent would have been set for employees within this and other industries with irregular working hours to challenge the accepted pattern of work and annual leave. However, The Supreme Court did recognise that its decision might lead to some unscrupulous employers circumventing annual-leave entitlement by requiring workers to take their annual leave in single days each Saturday. 

www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0231_Judgment.pdf

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/57.html

www.eversheds.com/uk/home/articles/index1.page?ArticleID=templatedata%5CEversheds%5Carticles%5Cdata%5Cen%5CEmployment_and_labour_law%5CHR_ebriefing_529_07122011