In the case of Anderson v Jarvis Hotels plc, Employment
Appeal Tribunal, 30 May 2006, the issue to be determined was
whether an employee is entitled to be paid during sleep-overs.
The facts of the case are straightforward. Mr Anderson was
employed by Jarvis as a Guest Care Manager at one of its hotels in
Edinburgh. Although he lived only a very short distance away, his
employers required him to regularly sleep overnight in the hotel in
order to deal with emergencies such as fire and flood. On one
occasion, he received a verbal warning for leaving the hotel for 30
minutes or so during a sleep-over period.
Jarvis did not pay Mr Anderson for his sleep-overs on the basis
that he was not actually working during those periods. Mr Anderson
took his employers to the Employment Tribunal. His claim was for
unpaid contractual wages. The Tribunal rejected the claim. It
considered that, as Mr Anderson was sleeping at the hotel in order
to deal with emergencies such as fire and flood and as such
emergencies were extremely rare, it could not be said that Mr
Anderson was either at his employers' disposal or carrying out
activities during the sleep-overs.
Mr Anderson appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The EAT
allowed the appeal. In doing so, it suggested that the Tribunal's
approach "simply misses the point". As far as the EAT was
concerned, it was clear that Mr Anderson was working during the
sleep-overs. The "work" he was doing was being present in the
hotel. By being present, Mr Anderson met a need of his employers.
That need was to have people in the hotel to deal with emergencies.
Mr Anderson was accordingly entitled to be paid for the sleep-over
periods.
Presumably, if Jarvis had not required Mr Anderson to be present
in the hotel during sleep-over periods but had been satisfied with
him being at home and on call, no right to be paid contractual
wages would have arisen. However, where an employer not only
insists on an employee remaining on its premises overnight but
disciplines him for failing for do so, it is perhaps not surprising
that the employee is then entitled to be paid contractual
wages.