E11 Backstage Studio Ltd

Case Summary

This is a reconsideration judgment concerning a national minimum wage claim relating to 'idle time' under Regulation 32 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. The claimant sought reconsideration of the tribunal's decision that idle time payment was only due from 1 January 2025 onwards, rather than across the entire worker relationship. The tribunal refused the reconsideration application, finding no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied.

The tribunal found that the claimant's issues had already been decided in the original judgment. The tribunal's finding that idle time payment was due from 1 January 2025 was based on evidence showing that the claimant was not required to attend without bookings before that date, and that the date was supported by evidence of increased control by the respondent from January 2025 onwards.

• •Whether Regulation 32 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 should apply across the whole worker relationship or only from 1 January 2025
• •Whether time spent at salon without pre-booked appointments constitutes 'time work' payable as idle time
• •The date from which the claimant was required to attend the salon irrespective of bookings

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms N Shpak Respondent: E11 Backstage Studio Limited JUDGMENT FOLLOWING RECONSIDERATION The Claimant’s application dated 5 May 2026 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 24 April 2026 (referred to me on 17 May 2026) is refused. The remedy hearing remains listed for 25 June 2026 if the parties are unable to agree a settlement using the guidelines already provided in the judgment. REASONS There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, for the following reasons: 1. The Claimant’s application relates to whether Regulation 32 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 should have been considered across the whole of the worker relationship, rather just from 1 January 2025 when the judgment found there was a change in the working relationship, such that ‘idle time’ was payable from this date. 2. Rule 70(2) Tribunal Rules 2024 does not require the Respondent’s input at the initial consideration stage, but the Respondent has in any event responded to the application on 7 May 2026. 3. Turning to each of the Claimant’s grounds in the application, ground 1 was on the basis that an undecided issue was whether the Claimant’s time when already present at the salon/nearby for pre-booked appointments, was ‘time work’ under Regulation 32 (application para 4.2). 2 4. Para 31 of the judgment deals with this issue. This finding expressly covers the situation of both a day with no pre-booked appointments or a day with pre-booked appointments but with gaps in between those appointments. Para 32 addresses both the situation of no pre-booked appointments or a day with gaps between appointments. Para 33 addresses the situation of a day with no pre-booked appointments at all and a day with gaps between appointments. Para 42 (Reasons) covers both days with no pre-booked appointments at all an…