A SERIES of studies has suggested that if we routinely work long hours for prolonged periods, we can damage our health and increase the risk of suffering serious disease.
But does a workplace culture of long hours risk breaching the Equality Act?
A case brought by Mr Carreras raises some interesting points.
Mr Carreras was a high performing analyst for a brokerage firm.
He routinely worked long hours, finishing work between 9pm and 11pm most evenings.
Unfortunately, Mr Carreras was injured in a serious cycling accident which left him suffering from symptoms of fatigue, headaches and difficulty concentrating.
This made it hard for him to work late in the day.
Following a period of recovery, Mr Carreras' employer asked him to start working later.
The employer then started to assume that he would do so, asking when rather than if he would work late.
Mr Carreras felt that he might be made redundant or lose out on a bonus if he did not comply.
Eventually Mr Carreras resigned.
He claimed constructive dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act because his employer should have allowed him to work shorter hours.
At the tribunal stage, his case ran into difficulty because the employer had not "required" – in the sense of forced or compelled - Mr Carreras to work late.
The tribunal therefore took the view that the employer had not applied a "provision, criterion or practice" to work late, which was needed as the basis for his reasonable adjustments claim.
At the appeal in April this year, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled in Mr Carreras' favour.
Taking a "real world view", the judge held that an expectation or assumption placed upon an employee to work late was enough.
Employees could feel obliged to work in a particular way even if disadvantageous to their health.
Given the workplace environment, there was an element of compulsion and this amounted to a requirement by the employer to work late.
Is this the correct conclusion?
And if so, did the employer fail in its duty to make reasonable adjustments to alleviate the disadvantage faced by Mr Carreras due to his disability?
Should the employer have allowed him to work shorter hours?
And would he still be due the same level of bonus?
Although Mr Carreras' disability arose from physical injuries, the questions raised by his case are just as relevant to situations where the disability arises from a mental illness such as depression or anxiety.
At this year's Annual Employment Law Conference, I will talk about the duties which might apply to employers under the Equality Act in this context.
And finally – Mr Carreras' case will be heard by the Court of Appeal later this year.
At the conference, there will also be the comprehensive case law round-up from Toni McAlindin.
- Katie Williams is a speaker at the annual Employment Law Conference on November 17.
The full-day event equips delegates with the essential information, knowhow and skills to deal with the demands of employment law and personnel management in an enjoyable way in the company of fellow professionals.
You can also read blogs from speakers Sandy Kemp of Clyde & Co and Euan Smith of Pinsent Masons