Saturday, 7 April 2018

APRIL 2018 EMPLOYMENT LAW NEWS

My periodic newsletter on all things employment law related that I think you should be aware of.
View this email in your browser
                                        EDITORIAL

Hello  Colleagues, Readers and Chums ,  this month I make no apologies for the length of my "coffee and doughnut item"    It is an essential read for you all.   For those of you kind enough to have contacted me  regarding my little collection of library items on GDPR you will find this piece invaluable and. I hope,   reassuring.    I am grateful to my professional colleagues at BSA Marketing for compiling this down to earth, real world view of the whole issue.  I have had clients contacting me to say they received offers to attend "important training seminars" at £600 a head to learn "all about GDPR and avoid the crippling fines if you get it wrong"  !!      For crying out loud, it is not that difficult ,     The humungous fines quoted are meant for the likes of Facepage and Fritter who have millions of peoples data on file.  Most of us simply have the details on our employees or clients.    To quote that TV advert,   "stress not!" 

           Read on for details of this months reports and, as always, call me or mail me if you have any concerns or need more information about this edition's content.

Kind regards,     Paul 
 

First The News:

Government announces holiday and sick pay for gig workers
 
Its 'Good Work' plan comes in response to the independent Taylor Review, published last year, which investigated what impact modern working practices are having on business and people. The review found that the strength of the UK’s labour market is built on flexibility but that a clearer focus is needed on the quality of work as well as the quantity of jobs.
In some cases the government is going further than the review, it claimed. For example in introducing: holiday and sick pay for gig workers for the first time; a right for all workers, not just zero hours and agency, to request a more stable contract; and a right for all workers to demand payslips.

My thanks to HR magazine for their continuing pieces.
read the full piece here on my blog page
 

 
Newsflash:
 
As of April 2018, the following changes apply:


With effect from 1 April 2018:
 
  • The rate of Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay and Statutory Shared Parental Pay increases from £140.98 to £145.18 per week.
 
  • The hourly rate of the National Living Wage (the rate for workers who are aged 25 and over) increases from £7.50 to £7.83. At the same time, the National Minimum Wage for workers aged at least 21 but under 25 rises from £7.05 to £7.38 per hour, the rate for workers who are aged at least 18 but under 21 increases from £5.60 to £5.90 per hour and the rate for workers aged 16 or 17 rises from £4.05 to £4.20 per hour. The apprentice rate rises from £3.50 to £3.70 per hour.
 
  • The accommodation offset increases from £6.40 to £7.00 per day. The accommodation offset applies when an employer provides an employee with housing as part of his or her job. In these circumstances, a daily accommodation offset can be taken into account for the purposes of calculating whether or not the national minimum wage has been paid.

With effect from 6 April 2018:
 
  • All payments made in lieu of notice, whether contractual or not, will be subject to tax and Class 1 National Insurance contributions.
 The minimum level of employer contribution into a pensions auto-enrolment scheme increases from 1% to 2%.
 The maximum amount of a week's pay for the purpose of calculating the basic award for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment increases to £508 a week.
 The maximum amount of the compensatory award for unfair dismissal increases to £83,682.
 The rate of Statutory Sick Pay increases from £89.35 to £92.05 per week.

 


And this, just in: my coffee and doughnut item!    seriously ,  read this    will assist you to get a grip on the whole issue!

We need to talk about….GDPR

 
The imminent implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation is one of the most talked about subjects in business just now. Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what the impact for business will be. There is a great deal of hype and even fear being generated around GDPR and B2B email marketing. Therefore, I feel it would be useful to have a look at some of the key facts in relation to SME businesses.
           Before I start, this article is my opinion of the regulations, not a definitive legal interpretation. GDPR is a document full of legalese and EU-speak. However, the principles are not designed to put unnecessary barriers on people doing good, honest business. They are designed to give individuals reasonable protection in an increasingly complex world. No bad thing in my opinion.      There has been a great deal of ‘fear talk’  and I want to establish some balance.              I am not proposing to attempt to deliver a ‘One size fits all’ approach to GDPR. Rather I am looking objectively at the regulation based on the output of key partners to the regulation including the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) and the DPN (Data Protection Network)                  The ICO is the UK representative on the EU’s Article 29 Working Party  – the EU body at the heart of GDPR.
The DPN is dedicated to providing expert opinion, quality resources and learning materials, to both experts and non-experts in the field of Data Protection and Privacy.

GDPR is coming.

One thing is for certain:
GDPR will apply from 25 May 2018
So what should you do about GDPR in your business?
First and foremost, you shouldn’t ignore GDPR. I believe there are 4 key issues to consider:
  1. Is it legitimate for you/your company to hold & process personal data as you do?
  2. Have you assessed the data you hold to check it is appropriate?
  3. Have you assessed potential risks arising from any data breach and have you taken reasonable steps to protect against any such breach
  4. What procedure do you have in place to take appropriate action in the event of a breach resulting in the unauthorised release of personal data
To look at these another way:
  • You need to be comfortable that your business operates within the regulations
  • You need to be aware of the principles of GDPR and the rights of ‘Data Subjects’ regarding the data you hold on them.
  • Your policies (e,g, Data Protection/Privacy policies on your website) should meet the requirements of GDPR
  • You should be ready to engage openly with people about the data you hold
  • You should respect the rights of Data Subjects to say ‘No Thank You’

The principles

I have read around the subject of GDPR. The principles behind the regulations actually seem to come down to four words: Reasonable, civilized, common senseIf you hold information on a person, you should respect that data and only use (‘process‘ in the jargon) the data in ways that are – to quote the Advertising Standards Authority:
  • Legal
  • Decent
  • Honest
  • Truthful
The idea applies here to all data, not just that used for Advertising & Marketing, in addition, I think we should also add the principle of openness.
If someone holds data on you it is reasonable that, if you want, they should be open about letting you know what information they hold, why they hold it and how they use it. Furthermore, you should have the right to oblige someone holding your personal data to stop using it – unless there is some higher legal obligation.

Must I gain opt-in consent from my data subjects?

This is a key question from businesses using data for marketing and the answer, in short, is No!
Consent is not an absolute requirement under GDPR
Understandably, there is a lot of emphasis on consent. In many instances, getting the consent of a data subject to hold and process their personal data may be ideal. Getting specific opt-in consent should never be a bad thing though sometimes it is impractical.              Under the GDPR, there are 6 ‘Lawful Bases’ for processing data. Consent is listed first although there is no hierarchy in the list. Each ‘Lawful Basis’ has the same weight.            In practical terms, the basis most likely to be relevant to marketers (B2B in particular) is ‘Legitimate Interest’

Legitimate Interest in GDPR

The GDPR states,
‘the processing of Personal Data for direct marketing purposes may be regarded as carried out for a legitimate interest.’  An organisation may wish to rely upon Legitimate Interests where Consent is not viable or not preferred and the Balance of Interests condition can be met.
Note the phrase: “may be regarded as…”, so organisations will still need to ensure they can establish necessity and balance their interests with the interests of those receiving the direct marketing communications. This may be where consent is not viable or not preferred, though the DPN rightly stresses the fact that organisations will still need to show that there is a balance of interests – their own and those of the person receiving the marketing.
Though the GDPR does not list all circumstances in which legitimate interests may apply, it does specify that any processing under this banner meets the balance of interests condition – are the interests of the controller overridden by the interests or rights of individuals?
The DPN’s guidance document explores these ideas and gives a range of examples (though these are predominantly B2C)

Is the Legitimate Interest basis appropriate for my business?

There is a difference between B2C where you are targeting individuals and B2B where you are using personal data to actually target job roles. Consequently, in B2B it may be easier to establish Legitimate Interest relevance. In B2C, particularly where children, the elderly or more vulnerable adults are involved, if you apply the common sense approach I talked about earlier, you will see that things become more complicated.
Please Note: The above are my own views based on my research, not a definitive legal opinion. For more detailed advice on the application of GDPR to your business, I recommend you approach a GDPR specialist.
My Comment : I am grateful to my professional  colleague  David Wright at BSA Marketing for this excellent piece   see the full item at BSA marketing

or read it on my blog page

Wednesday, 4 April 2018

The government has adopted nearly all of the the Taylor Review’s recommendations


Add a comment

​The government has adopted nearly all of the the Taylor Review’s recommendations in its response, published today

Its 'Good Work' plan comes in response to the independent Taylor Review, published last year, which investigated what impact modern working practices are having on business and people. The review found that the strength of the UK’s labour market is built on flexibility but that a clearer focus is needed on the quality of work as well as the quantity of jobs.
In some cases the government is going further than the review, it claimed. For example in introducing: holiday and sick pay for gig workers for the first time; a right for all workers, not just zero hours and agency, to request a more stable contract; and a right for all workers to demand payslips.
The government is also asking the Low Pay Commission to consider a higher minimum wage for workers on zero-hours contracts, and says it may also repeal laws that allow agencies to employ workers on cheaper rates.
A consultation into employment status is also to be launched, including consideration of whether new legislation is needed to make it easier for both individuals and organisations to understand whether someone is an employee, worker or self-employed.
The government has also launched consultations into the enforcement of employment rights and measures to increase transparency in the UK labour market.
It announced that it will be cracking down on sectors where unpaid interns are doing the job of a worker, introducing a new naming scheme for employers who fail to pay employment tribunal awards, and quadrupling employment tribunal fines for employers showing malice, spite or gross oversight.
Ben Wilmott, head of public policy at the CIPD, welcomed the government’s response, stating that it “rightly places more attention on the enforcement of existing rights that can help ensure bad practice will be stamped out wherever it exists”. He said that the CIPD particularly supports the adoption of the right to receive a payslip and terms and conditions from day one.
“We particularly welcome the clear commitment to enshrining the principles of 'good work' and ensuring that they are measured on an ongoing basis,” he added. “Work can and should be a force for good, and the measures announced today, alongside the ongoing consultations with business, will help to ensure that these principles are reflected across the economy.”
Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation, also welcomed these enhanced enforcement powers, cautioning however that the consultations launched must lead quickly to action.
“The government is right to be taking concrete measures to boost enforcement of our labour market rules and to increase the fines for employers who break them too often,” he said. “In the past we have left individuals to enforce their own rights so a clear role for HMRC in policing sick and holiday pay is welcome.”
Regarding the consultations announced, however, he said: “For some of these, such as the complex issue of employment status, that is sensible. But the risk for others is that the government gives us a topic of conversation when what Britain really needs is an agenda for action.”
Regarding the Low Pay Commission review into requiring firms to pay a higher minimum wage for non-contracted hours, he added that “whether it sees the light of day remains to be seen”.
The government has also pledged to ‘improve pension provision among the self-employed', and to take up Taylor’s recommendation that it should ‘bring together employers and the education sector to develop a consistent approach to employability and lifelong learning’.
IPSE (the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed) welcomed these proposals. “The lack of pension provision among the self-employed has been a growing concern for some time,” said Chris Bryce, IPSE’s CEO.
He added that: “Ongoing training and skills development are major issues for the self-employed, and the government can help by making training tax-deductible for them (as it is for employees) and by collating and certifying reputable courses to help the self-employed find and choose the right training.”
Unions have been far more critical of the government’s response. Jason Moyer-Lee, general secretary of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) said: "Like the Taylor Review, it so far appears big on grandiose claims light on substance.
"The most important single thing government could do is introduce effective government enforcement of employment law. They say they will do this but give no indication of how.”
TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: "The government has taken a baby step – when it needed to take a giant leap.”

ANNUAL SCHEDULED INCREASE IN NMW AND OTHER BENEFITS


As of April 2018, the following changes apply: 

With effect from 1 April 2018:

·         The rate of Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay and Statutory Shared Parental Pay increases from £140.98 to £145.18 per week.

·         The hourly rate of the National Living Wage (the rate for workers who are aged 25 and over) increases from £7.50 to £7.83. At the same time, the National Minimum Wage for workers aged at least 21 but under 25 rises from £7.05 to £7.38 per hour, the rate for workers who are aged at least 18 but under 21 increases from £5.60 to £5.90 per hour and the rate for workers aged 16 or 17 rises from £4.05 to £4.20 per hour. The apprentice rate rises from £3.50 to £3.70 per hour.

·         The accommodation offset increases from £6.40 to £7.00 per day. The accommodation offset applies when an employer provides an employee with housing as part of his or her job. In these circumstances, a daily accommodation offset can be taken into account for the purposes of calculating whether or not the national minimum wage has been paid.

With effect from 6 April 2018:

·         All payments made in lieu of notice, whether contractual or not, will be subject to tax and Class 1 National Insurance contributions.

·         The minimum level of employer contribution into a pensions auto-enrolment scheme increases from 1% to 2%.

·         The maximum amount of a week's pay for the purpose of calculating the basic award for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment increases to £508 a week.

·         The maximum amount of the compensatory award for unfair dismissal increases to £83,682.

·         The rate of Statutory Sick Pay increases from £89.35 to £92.05 per week.

 

We need to talk about….GDPR

The imminent implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation is one of the most talked about subjects in business just now. Everyone seems to have a different opinion on what the impact for business will be. There is a great deal of hype and even fear being generated around GDPR and B2B email marketing. Therefore, I feel it would be useful to have a look at some of the key facts in relation to SME businesses.
           Before I start, this article is my opinion of the regulations, not a definitive legal interpretation. GDPR is a document full of legalese and EU-speak. However, the principles are not designed to put unnecessary barriers on people doing good, honest business. They are designed to give individuals reasonable protection in an increasingly complex world. No bad thing in my opinion.      There has been a great deal of ‘fear talk’  and I want to establish some balance.              I am not proposing to attempt to deliver a ‘One size fits all’ approach to GDPR. Rather I am looking objectively at the regulation based on the output of key partners to the regulation including the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) and the DPN (Data Protection Network)                  The ICO is the UK representative on the EU’s Article 29 Working Party  – the EU body at the heart of GDPR.
The DPN is dedicated to providing expert opinion, quality resources and learning materials, to both experts and non-experts in the field of Data Protection and Privacy.

GDPR is coming.

One thing is for certain:
GDPR will apply from 25 May 2018
So what should you do about GDPR in your business?
First and foremost, you shouldn’t ignore GDPR. I believe there are 4 key issues to consider:
  1. Is it legitimate for you/your company to hold & process personal data as you do?
  2. Have you assessed the data you hold to check it is appropriate?
  3. Have you assessed potential risks arising from any data breach and have you taken reasonable steps to protect against any such breach
  4. What procedure do you have in place to take appropriate action in the event of a breach resulting in the unauthorised release of personal data
To look at these another way:
  • You need to be comfortable that your business operates within the regulations
  • You need to be aware of the principles of GDPR and the rights of ‘Data Subjects’ regarding the data you hold on them.
  • Your policies (e,g, Data Protection/Privacy policies on your website) should meet the requirements of GDPR
  • You should be ready to engage openly with people about the data you hold
  • You should respect the rights of Data Subjects to say ‘No Thank You’

The principles

I have read around the subject of GDPR. The principles behind the regulations actually seem to come down to four words: Reasonable, civilized, common senseIf you hold information on a person, you should respect that data and only use (‘process‘ in the jargon) the data in ways that are – to quote the Advertising Standards Authority:
  • Legal
  • Decent
  • Honest
  • Truthful
The idea applies here to all data, not just that used for Advertising & Marketing, in addition, I think we should also add the principle of openness.
If someone holds data on you it is reasonable that, if you want, they should be open about letting you know what information they hold, why they hold it and how they use it. Furthermore, you should have the right to oblige someone holding your personal data to stop using it – unless there is some higher legal obligation.

Must I gain opt-in consent from my data subjects?

This is a key question from businesses using data for marketing and the answer, in short, is No!
Consent is not an absolute requirement under GDPR
Understandably, there is a lot of emphasis on consent. In many instances, getting the consent of a data subject to hold and process their personal data may be ideal. Getting specific opt-in consent should never be a bad thing though sometimes it is impractical.              Under the GDPR, there are 6 ‘Lawful Bases’ for processing data. Consent is listed first although there is no hierarchy in the list. Each ‘Lawful Basis’ has the same weight.            In practical terms, the basis most likely to be relevant to marketers (B2B in particular) is ‘Legitimate Interest’

Legitimate Interest in GDPR

The GDPR states,
‘the processing of Personal Data for direct marketing purposes may be regarded as carried out for a legitimate interest.’  An organisation may wish to rely upon Legitimate Interests where Consent is not viable or not preferred and the Balance of Interests condition can be met.
Note the phrase: “may be regarded as…”, so organisations will still need to ensure they can establish necessity and balance their interests with the interests of those receiving the direct marketing communications. This may be where consent is not viable or not preferred, though the DPN rightly stresses the fact that organisations will still need to show that there is a balance of interests – their own and those of the person receiving the marketing.
Though the GDPR does not list all circumstances in which legitimate interests may apply, it does specify that any processing under this banner meets the balance of interests condition – are the interests of the controller overridden by the interests or rights of individuals?
The DPN’s guidance document explores these ideas and gives a range of examples (though these are predominantly B2C)

Is the Legitimate Interest basis appropriate for my business?

There is a difference between B2C where you are targeting individuals and B2B where you are using personal data to actually target job roles. Consequently, in B2B it may be easier to establish Legitimate Interest relevance. In B2C, particularly where children, the elderly or more vulnerable adults are involved, if you apply the common sense approach I talked about earlier, you will see that things become more complicated.
There is a template for such an assessment in the DPN’s guidance document
Whatever your approach you should always be Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful – and open.

Conclusion

In summary, GDPR is not a threat to the large majority of businesses. There is a great deal of hype and ‘fear marketing‘ around at the moment. Many of the principles enshrined in GDPR already exist in the current data protection legislation. Some, however, have been clarified and extended. There are some great guidance notes available from both the Information Commissioners Office and the Data Protection Network.   The sun will rise on the morning of 26th May and the world will still be turning!
Please Note: The above are my own views based on my research, not a definitive legal opinion. For more detailed advice on the application of GDPR to your business, I recommend you approach a GDPR specialist.
My Comment : I am grateful to my professional  colleague  David Wright at BSA Marketing for this excellent piece   see the full item at BSA marketing

Thursday, 1 March 2018

Can agency workers, be compensated for less holiday

Can agency workers, entitled after 12 weeks to the same basic working conditions as an end-user's employees, be compensated for less holiday or unpaid breaks by a higher hourly pay?

No, held the EAT in Kocur v Royal Mail, upholding two grounds of the Claimant's appeal.

Regulation 5 of the Agency Workers Regulation 2010 entitled the Claimant to the same basic working and employment conditions as the hirer's comparable employees. He got higher hourly pay, but 2.5 days less holiday; a 1-hour rest break was only paid for 30 minutes, not the hour. His daily pay was £1.95 higher. The tribunal found that this offset those less favourable terms.

The EAT disagreed; an agency or hirer cannot offset a failure to confer a specific AWR entitlement (e.g. the same annual leave) with a higher rate of pay. The entitlement is to the same basic terms and conditions as comparable employees on a 'term-by-term' basis with equal terms, not by comparing the overall package.

However, parity can be achieved in different ways, e.g. identical holiday pay could be provided by a lump sum at assignment end, or in 'rolled-up' holiday pay. If so, the payment mechanism must be transparent so the agency worker can readily ascertain how remuneration relates to annual leave.

The EAT rejected a contention that the Claimant's entitlement to the same 'duration of working time' entitled him to work the precisely the same number of hours as comparable employees (e.g. a 39-hour week); the entitlement would be to the same working time as employees, so not getting an 8-hour shift when the employees' maximum shift is 6 hours.


My Comment: It still amazes the lengths some employers go to, to try and get around regulations!     this was never going to be seen as being compliant.   

Experts warn of rush of claims following Tesco pay case

Social media, increased appetite from law firms, and scrutiny around gender pay could all lead to more private sector claims

Legal experts have warned that the Tesco £4 billion equal pay case could open the floodgates for more large private sector claims.
Almost 100 Tesco employees have launched a group claim asserting that the value of the work female shop floor workers do, which sees them earn up to £3 an hour less than male warehouse staff, is comparable to these warehouse jobs. As many as 200,000 women who work in Tesco stores could receive back pay totalling £20,000 each if the claim is successful.
A similar claim was launched against Asda, with a Manchester employment tribunal ruling in 2016 that female employees could compare themselves to male staff in Asda’s distribution centres.
The most high-profile equal pay cases of recent years have until now concerned the public sector. Birmingham City Council is now liable for more than £1 billion pounds in payments after settling an equal pay claim from women employed as cleaners, cooks and carers who claimed their work was of equal value to that of binmen and male street cleaners.
“There is a concern that the potentially £4 billion Tesco claim means the levee for equal pay claims in the private sector will finally break,” commented Paul Quain, a partner at GQ Employment Law.
“Up until fairly recently large equal pay claims have been virtually unknown in the private sector while being relatively common in the public sector. Unions have been happy to fund these cases in the public sector, but less so in the private sector where union membership is much lower.”
Quain said a key factor in the shift was the technology now available to help organise support for group claims. “Social media like WhatsApp and Facebook make it very easy to pull together and manage a group of claimants from the grassroots level – you no longer need a union to organise claimants,” he said.
He added that UK law firms also now appear to be increasingly willing to take on the cost risk of group claims without the support of union funding. “As the risk appetite of UK law firms increases we expect that more group claims will follow – following the US model where these kinds of claims are far more prevalent in the private sector,” he said.
Crowley Woodford, an employment partner at law firm Ashurst, warned that this could prompt a “tidal wave” of claims.
"The Tesco employees are trying to capitalise on the success of the Asda ruling,” he said. “If the Tesco employees are equally successful then all major retailers, and indeed businesses more generally, could be exposed to a tidal wave of equal pay litigation."
Helen Watson, head of employment law at Aaron & Partners, said that April’s looming gender pay reporting deadline is also a factor.
"The spotlight is now firmly on gender pay gap reporting and I expect we will see a lot more cases like this emerging in the months ahead,” she warned. “It's clear that the glass ceiling exists in many companies, and there is clear inequality in what women at all levels of employment are receiving in terms of remuneration and opportunity.”
She added: “Our advice to the business community is that it’s important to review the gender pay gap now and seek legal support and advice. The equal pay claim against Tesco could see them hit with an eye-watering bill of up to £4 billion and it is a stark example of what could apply, albeit on a smaller scale, to smaller businesses anywhere in the UK.”
“Equal pay claims are legally complex, can be difficult to settle early and can drag on for years as people jump on the bandwagon long after the initial launch,” added Quain. “The Asda equal pay claims have been running since 2014 and are far from over.”
"It may be too late for Tesco to remedy this situation, but there are likely to be hundreds of businesses out there who have similar pay practices within their organisation whether they openly know it or not,” added Donna Martin, partner at Mackrell Turner Garrett.
She advised businesses: “Do not hesitate, act now and seek professional assistance if you need it. Claims such as these are not only costly, but they could have a significant impact on your company’s reputation.”
My Comment: This has been a while coming of course,  and we all knew it was right!     You cannot women less than men for work of equal value !!     Now it's official.  My thanks  To   HRmagazine for this piece

Can stand-by time spent at home be 'working time'?


Working Time: Time Spent 'On Call' at Home

holdingimage.jpg
Thanks to James English of Hempsons solicitors for preparing this case summary.


Can stand-by time spent at home but within 8 minutes travel of a workplace be 'working time'?

Yes, held the CJEU, in Ville de Nivelles v Matzak.

The Claimant had served as a volunteer retained firefighter for the Belgian town of Nivelles since 1980. Whilst on 'stand-by duty', he had to be contactable and within 8 minutes travelling time of the fire station. All staff (professional and voluntary) were paid an annual allowance for stand-by shifts, and the Claimant claimed that he had not been paid appropriately for this time.

Amongst the issues the CJEU had to consider was whether stand-by time was working time (having decided that the Claimant was a worker). The Advocate General had suggested that the quality of the time a worker would spend on stand-by was more important that the restriction on where they should be. The CJEU rejected this, noting that the intensity of work did not determine whether time was working time or a rest period.

The CJEU went on to decide that when a worker had to be physically present at a place determined by the employer (even if their own home) and available to work at short notice, making it impossible for the worker to choose where to be, then that would come within their normal working duties. Therefore, in this case stand-by time was working time. It would then be for the national court to determine whether the Claimant had been properly paid for this time.
 
My Comment : This might be about a volunteer fireman in Belgium,  but there is an impact for many sectors here.   Not the least care homes.   This topic has been simmering for some time now and it is starting to become very clear the way it is going to pan out.    The tradition in the UK care home industry has been to pay only a fixed fee for "sleep ins" .   It is now becoming clear that "sleep-ins"   are "working time"  for the purposes of pay.   They should then be paid at not less than the NMW  for all hours spent.   This too will apply to the security or maintenance companies who have engineers "on stand-by" .