Description
The Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to settle a dispute between an employee and their employer in circumstances where the employee argued that he was entitled to be paid overtime despite it not being an express contractual term of his employment. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.lefebvre-uk.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Brake Brothers Limited and Hudek, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to determine whether an employment tribunal, considering an unlawful deduction from wages claim, had been correct to imply a term into the employee's contract relating to entitlement to overtime pay when the employee worked beyond his contractual working hours, and in the absence of an express term to this effect. In this case, a lorry driver working for a food distribution company brought a claim for unpaid wages under the unlawful deduction from wages provisions. The driver argued that he had worked for more than his contracted weekly hours and was entitled to pro rata payments based upon his annual salary for the additional hours he had worked. The driver's employment contract required him to work five shifts per week and the average shift length was nine hours and was later varied to 9.4 hours. The contract also required the driver to work such hours on each shift as were necessary for the proper performance of his duties. Under the contract, overtime was only payable if the driver worked an additional half or full shift, with a half shift being set at a minimum of 4.5 hours. In practice, the driver would sometimes receive ad hoc payments or time off in lieu if he accepted additional delivery rounds by agreement with the employer. Conversely, if the driver's own allocated delivery rounds simply took longer than expected, He received no additional payment. The driver's claim related to those additional unpaid hours he worked when his delivery round was too long to complete in his normal working hours. The tribunal held that the driver's contract of employment provided for an averaging out of his working hours and implied a term that if no such averaging out took place within a reasonable period, the driver would be paid for all additional hours worked above the intended average. The employer appealed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the appeal. setting aside the tribunal's decision and dismissing the driver's claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had erred when it applied a term into the driver's employment contract to the effect that he should be paid overtime if he worked additional hours above the average. Properly construed, the driver's contract entitled him to his basic salary for working five shifts of variable length each week. In any event, neither business efficacy nor the unexpressed intention of the parties justified the tribunal implying a term that the driver would be paid for working time in excess of his intended normal working hours, other than when the express overtime provisions applicable to drivers were engaged for half or full shifts worked by agreement. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
The Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to settle a dispute between an employee and their employer in circumstances where the employee argued that he was entitled to be paid overtime despite it not being an express contractual term of his employment. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.lefebvre-uk.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Brake Brothers Limited and Hudek, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to determine whether an employment tribunal, considering an unlawful deduction from wages claim, had been correct to imply a term into the employee's contract relating to entitlement to overtime pay when the employee worked beyond his contractual working hours, and in the absence of an express term to this effect. In this case, a lorry driver working for a food distribution company brought a claim for unpaid wages under the unlawful deduction from wages provisions. The driver argued that he had worked for more than his contracted weekly hours and was entitled to pro rata payments based upon his annual salary for the additional hours he had worked. The driver's employment contract required him to work five shifts per week and the average shift length was nine hours and was later varied to 9.4 hours. The contract also required the driver to work such hours on each shift as were necessary for the proper performance of his duties. Under the contract, overtime was only payable if the driver worked an additional half or full shift, with a half shift being set at a minimum of 4.5 hours. In practice, the driver would sometimes receive ad hoc payments or time off in lieu if he accepted additional delivery rounds by agreement with the employer. Conversely, if the driver's own allocated delivery rounds simply took longer than expected, He received no additional payment. The driver's claim related to those additional unpaid hours he worked when his delivery round was too long to complete in his normal working hours. The tribunal held that the driver's contract of employment provided for an averaging out of his working hours and implied a term that if no such averaging out took place within a reasonable period, the driver would be paid for all additional hours worked above the intended average. The employer appealed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the appeal. setting aside the tribunal's decision and dismissing the driver's claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had erred when it applied a term into the driver's employment contract to the effect that he should be paid overtime if he worked additional hours above the average. Properly construed, the driver's contract entitled him to his basic salary for working five shifts of variable length each week. In any event, neither business efficacy nor the unexpressed intention of the parties justified the tribunal implying a term that the driver would be paid for working time in excess of his intended normal working hours, other than when the express overtime provisions applicable to drivers were engaged for half or full shifts worked by agreement. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
Was a dismissal fair when a note taker and investigating officer were also witnesses?
ICO sets out expectations for organisations using automated decision-making for hiring decisions
Did the merger of NHS commissioning groups gave rise to a TUPE transfer?
Extension of adequacy decisions on transfers from EEA
Description
The Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to settle a dispute between an employee and their employer in circumstances where the employee argued that he was entitled to be paid overtime despite it not being an express contractual term of his employment. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.lefebvre-uk.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Brake Brothers Limited and Hudek, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to determine whether an employment tribunal, considering an unlawful deduction from wages claim, had been correct to imply a term into the employee's contract relating to entitlement to overtime pay when the employee worked beyond his contractual working hours, and in the absence of an express term to this effect. In this case, a lorry driver working for a food distribution company brought a claim for unpaid wages under the unlawful deduction from wages provisions. The driver argued that he had worked for more than his contracted weekly hours and was entitled to pro rata payments based upon his annual salary for the additional hours he had worked. The driver's employment contract required him to work five shifts per week and the average shift length was nine hours and was later varied to 9.4 hours. The contract also required the driver to work such hours on each shift as were necessary for the proper performance of his duties. Under the contract, overtime was only payable if the driver worked an additional half or full shift, with a half shift being set at a minimum of 4.5 hours. In practice, the driver would sometimes receive ad hoc payments or time off in lieu if he accepted additional delivery rounds by agreement with the employer. Conversely, if the driver's own allocated delivery rounds simply took longer than expected, He received no additional payment. The driver's claim related to those additional unpaid hours he worked when his delivery round was too long to complete in his normal working hours. The tribunal held that the driver's contract of employment provided for an averaging out of his working hours and implied a term that if no such averaging out took place within a reasonable period, the driver would be paid for all additional hours worked above the intended average. The employer appealed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the appeal. setting aside the tribunal's decision and dismissing the driver's claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had erred when it applied a term into the driver's employment contract to the effect that he should be paid overtime if he worked additional hours above the average. Properly construed, the driver's contract entitled him to his basic salary for working five shifts of variable length each week. In any event, neither business efficacy nor the unexpressed intention of the parties justified the tribunal implying a term that the driver would be paid for working time in excess of his intended normal working hours, other than when the express overtime provisions applicable to drivers were engaged for half or full shifts worked by agreement. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
The Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to settle a dispute between an employee and their employer in circumstances where the employee argued that he was entitled to be paid overtime despite it not being an express contractual term of his employment. Listen along to find out what happened!
Visit www.lefebvre-uk.co.uk to explore our product range, or connect with us on social media:
Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today, in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of Brake Brothers Limited and Hudek, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to determine whether an employment tribunal, considering an unlawful deduction from wages claim, had been correct to imply a term into the employee's contract relating to entitlement to overtime pay when the employee worked beyond his contractual working hours, and in the absence of an express term to this effect. In this case, a lorry driver working for a food distribution company brought a claim for unpaid wages under the unlawful deduction from wages provisions. The driver argued that he had worked for more than his contracted weekly hours and was entitled to pro rata payments based upon his annual salary for the additional hours he had worked. The driver's employment contract required him to work five shifts per week and the average shift length was nine hours and was later varied to 9.4 hours. The contract also required the driver to work such hours on each shift as were necessary for the proper performance of his duties. Under the contract, overtime was only payable if the driver worked an additional half or full shift, with a half shift being set at a minimum of 4.5 hours. In practice, the driver would sometimes receive ad hoc payments or time off in lieu if he accepted additional delivery rounds by agreement with the employer. Conversely, if the driver's own allocated delivery rounds simply took longer than expected, He received no additional payment. The driver's claim related to those additional unpaid hours he worked when his delivery round was too long to complete in his normal working hours. The tribunal held that the driver's contract of employment provided for an averaging out of his working hours and implied a term that if no such averaging out took place within a reasonable period, the driver would be paid for all additional hours worked above the intended average. The employer appealed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the appeal. setting aside the tribunal's decision and dismissing the driver's claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had erred when it applied a term into the driver's employment contract to the effect that he should be paid overtime if he worked additional hours above the average. Properly construed, the driver's contract entitled him to his basic salary for working five shifts of variable length each week. In any event, neither business efficacy nor the unexpressed intention of the parties justified the tribunal implying a term that the driver would be paid for working time in excess of his intended normal working hours, other than when the express overtime provisions applicable to drivers were engaged for half or full shifts worked by agreement. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
Was a dismissal fair when a note taker and investigating officer were also witnesses?
ICO sets out expectations for organisations using automated decision-making for hiring decisions
Did the merger of NHS commissioning groups gave rise to a TUPE transfer?
Extension of adequacy decisions on transfers from EEA
