Case round-up by Eversheds 020 7919 4500
Sleeping on the job
Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Jaeger, ECJ, 11 September 
Time spent by doctors on-call in a hospital constituted 'working time' under the Working Time Directive, even where the doctor was allowed to sleep during periods of inactivity.
Jaeger, a doctor in Germany, worked a number of on-call duties each month. When on-call, Jaeger was required to stay at the hospital, but was allocated a room to sleep in when his services were not required.
The Working Time Directive defines 'working time' as any period during which the worker is working, at the employer's disposal and carrying out his activities or duties, in accordance with national laws and/or practice.
Under German law, only the time spent actually performing tasks when doing on-call duties was classed as 'working time'. All other time spent on-call, when the worker's services were not required, was classed as 'rest periods'.
Jaeger challenged this arguing that his on-call duty in its entirety should be deemed to constitute 'working time'. However, his employer regarded all periods of inactivity during on-call time as rest periods and not as 'working time'.
The case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).It ruled that the Working Time Directive had to be interpreted as meaning that on-call duty performed by a doctor where he was required to be physically present in the hospital had to be regarded as constituting in its totality 'working time', even where the doctor was permitted to rest at his workplace when his services were not required.
Sick pay entitlement - who decides?
Taylor Gordon & Co Limited (trading as Plan Personnel) v Timmons, EAT, 25 September 
An employment tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider whether a worker was entitled to SSP, only whether there was a non-payment of SSP to which he was properly entitled.
Timmons brought a tribunal complaint for unlawful deduction from wages by the respondent employment agency (Plan Personnel), in that it had refused to pay him statutory sick pay (SSP). Plan Personnel defended the claim, arguing that Timmons was not entitled to SSP and therefore there had been no deduction from wages. The issue arose as to whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to decide if Timmons had been entitled to SSP.
The tribunal held