New challenge to UK's working time legislation

It emerged during April 2002 that the European Commission has started infringement proceedings against the UK over alleged inadequacies in implementing the EU working time Directive. The move follows a complaint by the Amicus trade union and could result in further changes in UK law to ensure compliance with the Directive.

In late April 2002, it was reported that the European Commission has taken the first steps towards initiating legal proceedings against the UK over its alleged failure to comply fully with the requirements of the 1993 EU working time Directive (93/104/EC). Following a complaint by the British trade union Amicus, the Commission has written to the UK government under Article 226 of the European Community (EC) Treaty seeking its observations on three aspects of the UK's Working Time Regulations 1999, which the union argued do not correctly implement the Directive.

According to the union, these concern:

• the absence of measures requiring employers to ensure that rest breaks and holidays are actually taken by workers;

• the scope under UK law for workers to work additional, unmeasured hours voluntarily without records being kept (UK9907117N); and

• the exclusion of night-shift overtime hours from the calculation of average hours worked at night.

The Commission reportedly sent its letter to the UK government on 21 March, giving the government two months within which to respond. According to the Financial Times, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has said it intends to make a full response to the Commission's letter by the 21 May deadline.

The Commission's move has been welcomed by trade unions (UK0202102F) but has angered employers' groups.

Roger Lyons, joint general secretary of Amicus, commented: 'I will be seeking urgent discussions with the DTI to explain why we made the complaint and why the UK government should now urgently change the law to comply with the Directive.'

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) expressed alarm at the development and called on the government to mount a 'robust defence' of the current UK Regulations. John Cridland, CBI deputy director-general, said in a statement: 'We urge the government to vigorously defend its implementation of the Directive because business will be deeply concerned about the Amicus action. Ministers have struck a balance between giving workers the choice not to work long hours and preserving company flexibility. Some trade unionists seem totally uninterested in flexibility and choice. They only want to control and nanny how long people can work.'

Employers are said to be particularly concerned at the prospect of having to record voluntary additional hours worked by employees. The CBI reportedly sees this as a 'bureaucratic nightmare'.

If, having considered the UK government's observations, the Commission decides to pursue the matter further, the next stage would be to issue a 'reasoned opinion' setting out what steps it believes the UK needs to take in order to meet its obligations under the Directive. If the UK government did not comply with this opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may refer the matter to the European Court of Justice under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.