A recent ruling from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) provides important guidance for employers, particularly those in the transport sector or with staff on variable working hours.
The case, Hudek v Brake Bros Ltd, highlights how ambiguity in contracts regarding working hours and overtime can lead to costly legal disputes.
If your business relies on flexible shifts or expects employees to work beyond contracted hours from time to time, this case serves as a valuable reminder: clear and precise employment contracts are essential.
Background: the driver's claim
Mr Hudek was employed by Brake Bros Ltd as a lorry driver. He brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages, arguing that he had regularly worked more hours than specified in his contract and was entitled to pro-rata payment for the extra time. When this wasn't paid, he claimed a deduction had occurred without lawful justification.
Under employment law, deductions from wages are only lawful if:
- permitted by statute;
- authorised in the contract; or
- agreed to in writing by the employee.
The contractual documents
Mr Hudek's employment terms were set out in three documents:
- Specific Terms
- Standard Terms
- An Addendum (linked to his location)
His core contract stated he would work 45 hours per week with a 9-hour average shift. The Addendum, however, increased this to 47 hours per week and a 9.4-hour average shift, alongside a 4.4% salary uplift.
While the contract mentioned that overtime was expected, it included specific clauses around when extra pay would be triggered, particularly for full or half additional shifts. What it didn't clearly address was unplanned extra time during a standard working week.
The tribunal journey: ET and EAT decisions
Employment Tribunal (ET)
The Employment Tribunal sided with Mr Hudek, holding that when his regular shifts overran, he was entitled to be paid for those extra hours, even if they didn't amount to a full or half shift. The Tribunal acknowledged that the employer had paid for some additional work when agreed in advance, but not for delays caused by traffic, longer deliveries, or unforeseen circumstances.
The ET reviewed the contractual documents and found no express provision covering this situation. As a result, it implied a term into the contract requiring Brake Bros to pay for any hours worked beyond 47 per week.
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
Brake Bros appealed, and the EAT overturned the ET's decision.
The EAT accepted that the contract allowed for some flexibility in hours and that the employee may occasionally need to exceed 47 hours. However, the EAT found no legal basis to imply a term requiring additional pay in those situations.
Importantly, the contract included a clause stating that the employee would work "whatever hours necessary" to fulfil their duties. This, the EAT concluded, was sufficient to cover occasional overruns without triggering overtime pay.
What employers should know
This case offers a few key takeaways for employers managing variable work hours:
- be specific: clearly state when overtime is payable, and when it's not
- cover the grey areas: consider including provisions for what happens if a shift overruns due to unavoidable delays
- avoid reliance on implied terms: courts will rarely imply contractual terms around pay unless absolutely necessary
- regularly review employment documents: especially when shifts, locations, or duties vary
Hudek v Brake Bros Ltd is a reminder that what's not written in a contract can be just as impactful as what is. Flexibility is important, but clarity is essential.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
