6 years and seven months
Time spent on call has always been a contentious issue in employment law and has gone as far as the European Courts of Justice. In those cases, it was decided that all "on-call" time constitutes working time if the employee is required to be in the workplace rather than at home, even if the worker is asleep (at the workplace) for some or all of that time. The fact that the workers were required to be in the workplace and ready for work indicated, in the ECJ's view, that they were to be regarded as carrying out their duties.
In the case of MacCartney v Oversley House Management, the employee was a warden living in tied accommodation within a sheltered housing complex. She was required to be available on site to answer calls 24 hours a day for four days a week. The courts held that she was engaged in working time throughout all her on-call duties. It stated that the precise nature of the accommodation supplied to workers when they were on call (that is, whether or not it was their "home") was not significant: the relevant question was whether they were required to be present and remain available at a place determined by the employer.
So if your employer chooses the place where you are to spend your on call duties, then you have a good argument that the time on call whilst there should amount tom working time as per the case law above.
Hope this clarifies your position? If you could please let me know that would be great, thank you
Thank you that is how i understood it, and thank you for going into so much detail
you are welcome, all the best