The business carried out by the respondent is the provision of accommodation and support for vulnerable young people. The claimant  sought compensation, including for a failure to allow her rest breaks she alleged caused “damage on my health and well-being”. The tribunal found that the respondent did not allow her the statutory 20 minute rest break under the 1998 Regulations and awarded compensation of £1,220 under Reg 30(3)(b).

The claimant appealed the amount of compensation and argued she was entitled to compensation for injury to feelings. The Working Time Regulations state that:

"The amount of the compensation shall be such as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard to -

(a) the employer’s default in refusing to permit the worker to exercise his right, and

(b) any loss sustained by the worker which is attributable to the matters complained of.”

They do not refer to awards for injury to feelings, as will be found in equality legislation breaches, but nor do they specifically exclude injury to feelings, as is the case in the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.

The EAT has rejected the claimant's arguments that injury to feelings should apply. There is nothing in the domestic legislation or the EU Directive that refers to such an award. However, an award for injuries - physical or mental - that resulted from the the employer's breaches could possibly be made:

"If an employer repeatedly refused rest breaks, an employee may become exhausted and ill.  In my judgement it may be argued that the loss to which an EJ [employment judge] may have regard under WTR 30(4)(b) in awarding compensation could include compensation for injury to health caused by the employer’s default.  Further, in certain circumstances the employee may be able to pursue a remedy in tort for such injury in the courts.  However, in this case Ms Churchhouse has made clear that the Claimant’s claim was not for injury to health but for injury to feelings.  The Directive does not specify the courts in which the entitlement is to be enforced nor the remedies which must be available.  The obligation imposed by the Directive is for Member States to implement its provisions in accordance with the objective to be achieved.  The means of doing so are left to Member States.  Those means must be such as to provide effective protection.  However, neither the Directive nor established principles of European law require the courts to construe WTR Regulation 30(4) so as to provide compensation for injury to feelings."

As with all UK EAT decisions, they are of persuasive authority in Northern Ireland, particularly in cases such as this, where analogous rights and obligations are applied in NI:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2016/0017_16_1805.html