General

The Government approach is to divide the working time provisions into two categories: those which give 'entitlements' to workers, and those which impose 'limits' on employers.

'Entitlements' are the provisions on breaks, daily rest, weekly rest , annual leave and compensatory rest. These are to be enforced by claims to Industrial Tribunals (to be re-named Employment Tribunals under the Employment Rights (Disputes Resolution) Act 1998).

'Limits' are the provisions on maximum weekly working time, length of night work, health assessments and transfers of night workers, patterns of work and keeping records. These are to be enforced by the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities with power to prosecute in line with existing health and safety legislation. 
This is undoubtedly an improvement on the Tory approach which denied workers any remedy unless they were sacked or victimised for seeking to exercise rights under the Directive. However, it has its faults.

Employees who come under pressure from their employers not to take up 'entitlements' to rest or holidays do not have adequate protection against coercion and cannot turn to the HSE for health and safety enforcement. From the other perspective, the enforcement of 'limits' is dependant on the HSE or other authorities taking action, without giving employees themselves rights which they can enforce in Tribunals.

There is one significant further legal weapon at the worker's disposal. An employer may be liable in a claim for damages if a worker suffers any loss or injury through working in excess of a working time limit. This would permit claims for personal injury or industrial disease where the injury or condition is caused by the excessive hours.

Tribunals A three month time limit applies for those rights (with the exception of claims for damages which have different time limits) to be enforced through tribunals and there are also provisions for compromise agreements. There is provision for a declaration of rights plus compensation which is not confined to financial loss, but also takes account of the extent of the employers' default.

Workers are also protected against detriment or dismissal for enforcing rights under the legislation, although these provisions fall short of adequate protection against coercion or inducements to give up rights.

Adapting work to the worker

(Regulation 7)

Article 13 of the Working Time Directive places obligations on employers who 'intend to organise work according to a certain pattern'. It is a perplexing provision which the Government has chosen to implement merely as a provision relating to rest breaks.

The regulation applies only where the pattern of work is such as to put the worker at risk, particularly because of monotonous work and work at a predetermined rate. The Government describes this as essentially a health and safety provision building on the requirement in the Framework Directive.

The proposal focuses on the obligation on employers 'especially as regards breaks during work'. It is wrong to regard this as the only obligation deriving from this Article. 
Not only does this distort the text of the Directive, there are other ways of alleviating monotonous work, job rotation for example. The object of protecting health must be seen in the broad context of providing a healthy working pattern and environment.

Increased breaks may play a part in this process, but the Regulations fail to provide any specific remedies. This appears to be inadequate and inappropriate.