In summarising the judgment Jonathan observes that “for workers who undertake sleep-in duties, their hopes of cash windfalls took a significant but not necessarily decisive blow” while, on the other hand, “the decision was met by a palpable collective sigh of relief by employers, particularly in the care sector, which it had been estimated were facing NMW back-pay liabilities of £400m.”
Aside from examining the key implications of the ruling for employers, Jonathan’s piece also takes into account the recent decision by Unison to lodge an appeal on behalf of the claimant before the Supreme Court. In this article Jonathan notes how, “if the Supreme Court grants the permission to appeal there can be no guarantee as to the outcome, especially given Unison’s landmark success challenging the unlawful implementation of tribunal fees in the Supreme Court in 2017.”
Alongside his views on the future direction of this matter, Jonathan also points out that due to the wide-ranging consequences of this ruling “perhaps the only thing that is clear is that employers and workers now face a further period of uncertainty while we await a final determination on this near two-decade old saga.”
If you’d like to read more of Jonathan’s thoughts on this case and the possibility of a future appeal before the Supreme Court, please click here to read the rest of his piece.
This information is necessarily of a general nature and doesn’t constitute legal advice. This is not a substitute for formal legal advice, given in the context of full information under an engagement with Bates Wells.
All content on this page is correct as of October 17, 2018.