In Russell v Transocean [2011] UKSC 57 the Supreme Court was asked to consider if oil rig workers enjoying on shore leave could be made to take their annual leave during those periods of rest.
The workers worked for a period of 2 weeks offshore followed by 2 weeks on shore, the latter being known as a 'field break' where they "could spend their time as they chose".
The issue was whether the employer could compel the workers to take the 5.6 weeks of minimum annual leave during their field breaks as opposed to any other time.
The employees argument was that the ‘field breaks’ were not part of the employees’ working time from which ‘leave’ entitlement under Article 7 of the Working Time Directive could be taken. The concept of ‘leave’ was more than just rest, “it was the worker’s right to say to his employer that, although his employer required him to work during a given period, he wanted to take his annual leave and to be released from the obligation to work during that period so that he could do so”.
The employees used the analogy of the conflict between the right to annual leave and the right to maternity leave as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) discussed in the case of Merino Gomez. Moreover the now familiar case of Stringer was deployed which discussed the conflict between annual leave and sick leave as having distinct purposes.
However in citing paragraph 30 of the ECJ’s decision in Gomez, Lord Hope said that “the ECJ has not said that a pre-ordained rest period, when a the worker is free from all obligations to the employer, can never constitute annual leave within the meaning of [Article 7 of the Working Time Directive]”
He went on to cite the comparison of teachers in term time and concluded that employers are entitled to insist that employees must take their period of annual leave during a period when they are on field break.
