Employment Attraction Tribunal overturns Employment Tribunal’s choice in lorry driver’s additional hours declare

The Employment Attraction Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that employment contracts don’t embody an implied time period that staff ought to obtain pay for work carried out exterior contracted hours, earlier than contractual extra time kicks in. The ruling made it clear that implied phrases shouldn’t override clear, categorical contractual provisions, significantly in relation to extra time and pay for additional hours labored.

Background

Mr Hudek, employed by Brake Bros Ltd, had a contract specifying 5 shifts per week, with a median shift size of 9.4 hours. The contract acknowledged that Mr Hudek’s function required him to work “such hours for every working shift as are obligatory for the correct efficiency” of his duties. It additionally contained extra time provisions, below which Mr Hudek would obtain extra time pay if he labored an extra full or half shift, with a half shift outlined as 4.5 hours or extra. Between February 2021 and December 2022, his precise common shift size was greater than 10 hours. Mr Hudek argued that he was entitled to be paid for these additional hours, claiming an implied time period within the contract requiring cost for hours labored past the meant common.

Employment Tribunal

Mr Hudek introduced a declare for illegal deduction from wages, searching for cost for the extra hours he had labored, primarily based on a professional rata cost of his annual wage.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) dominated in Mr Hudek’s favour, concluding that the contract contained an implied time period for added pay when hours exceeded the “meant weekly common”.

Employment Attraction Tribunal

The EAT upheld Brake Bros’ enchantment, holding that the ET was mistaken to indicate this time period. The contract clearly acknowledged that Mr Hudek’s fundamental wage lined 5 shifts per week, no matter whether or not these shifts exceeded the meant common.

The EAT famous that the pliability within the working hours, as outlined within the contract, was intentional and Brake Bros was not obliged to pay for hours labored past the common until the particular extra time circumstances had been triggered. The EAT additional emphasised that if the meant shift lengths had been repeatedly exceeded, the suitable plan of action would have been to renegotiate the phrases of the contract, as was executed in 2014 when an addendum was launched to replicate longer shifts.

There are two various checks for whether or not to indicate a time period right into a contract: (i) the place it’s obligatory to provide enterprise efficacy to the contract; and (ii) the place it was the apparent however unexpressed intention of the events. The EAT was happy that neither take a look at justified the implication of a time period that Brake Bros would pay Mr Hudek for hours labored over and above his regular working hours, besides the place the categorical extra time provisions kicked in.

Key takeaways

The case highlights the significance of clear contract phrases, particularly when coping with versatile working hours and extra time provisions. It’s reassuring for employers to know that they will construct in flexibility, through the use of wording that requires staff to work “such hours as are obligatory for the correct efficiency” of their duties. It’s maybe uncommon for a contract to comprise that sort of flexibility and an entitlement to extra time. The place your contracts do comprise each, it’s significantly vital to set out clearly when entitlement to extra time pay will kick in to handle staff’ expectations and keep away from potential disputes.