VODG responds to Supreme Court ruling on sleep in paymentsVODG has today responded to the Supreme Court judgment on sleep in payments, which upholds a 2018 Court of Appeal decision that social care workers who sleep during night shifts are entitled to the national minimum wage (NMW) only when they are awake and supporting people who require overnight support services.
Dr Rhidian Hughes, chief executive of VODG, said: “Clearly, there are no winners or losers in this case. While the judgement provides some welcome clarity to this issue, there is still significant uncertainty that can only be resolved by the Low Pay Commission carrying out a consultation and review, and for the Department of Health and Social Care to bring forward a workforce strategy for the social care sector.
“We are concerned of potential knee jerk reactions of local authority commissioners up and down the country which could see funding reduced, and therefore the pay of staff affected.
“The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the extent to which social care is a vital part of a civilised society. We need to value those who care for disabled people, including when they are available at night, and that includes a fair rate of pay.
“Social care providers, who were already operating in a challenging financial landscape before the pandemic, now face significant new financial, workforce and health and safety pressures
“This decision, coming as care workers remain on the frontline of the pandemic, illustrates that they deserve fair reward for work that supports disabled people to be more independent.
“The government must instruct the Low Pay Commission to consult with providers, commissioners and other stakeholders and then recommend a fair rate of pay for sleep in shift. Ministers must also ensure that local authorities have the funding to make that a reality in their contracts with social care providers.”
VODG has highlighted for many years that official guidance, inconsistent HMRC approaches and a range of legal decisions have created confusion around appropriate pay arrangements for sleep in shifts.
Dr Hughes added: "This case was not about what care workers should be paid – it was about the narrow interpretation of national minimum wage regulations. Now the sector has some clarity on this issue, there is an opportunity to introduce a system that enables government, commissioners, and providers to place proper value on the work of social care professionals, and on the vital care and support they provide to disabled people.
“The ad hoc arrangements of the past must be replaced with a new reality – one that provides sustainable, clear, and fair funding arrangements for sleep in shifts.
“We cannot have a postcode lottery in pay for social care workers doing such important work. Anything that worsens retention will only impact on disabled people who rely on social care services and lower the quality of care.”