Employee working extra hours loses wage deduction claim

Employee working extra hours loses wage deduction claim

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned an employment tribunal's ruling and held that a lorry driver had no right to be paid for additional hours worked in excess of his normal working hours. Why did the EAT rule against him?

Unlawful deductions from wages claim

In Brake Bros Ltd v Hudek 2025, Mr Hudek (H) was employed as a lorry driver for which he was paid an annual salary. Under his employment contract, his normal working hours were 40 hours per week over five shifts, an average shift length of 9.24 hours, but his contract also said he was required "to work such hours for each working shift as are necessary for the proper performance of [his] work duties on each shift".

He was contractually entitled to be paid for overtime, but only when he worked an additional

full or half shift. The minimum length of a half shift was set at 4.5 hours and so he had to work at least an extra 4.5 hours to qualify for overtime pay. If a normal shift took longer than expected but didn't involve an additional 4.5 hours' work, no extra payment was made to him.

H regularly worked additional hours beyond the length of his shifts when his allocated delivery rounds took longer than expected, but he wasn't paid any extra on those occasions. His shifts over the period of his claim averaged ten hours and seven minutes.

He brought an employment tribunal claim for unlawful deductions from his wages under the

Employment Rights Act 1996, arguing that as he had worked for more than his contracted weekly hours, he was entitled to receive pro rata payments,based on his annual salary, for the additional hours worked.

The employment tribunal found in his favour and awarded him over £4,600 in unpaid wages.

His employer then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

EAT overturns tribunal ruling

The EAT examined the express terms of H's contract and overturned the tribunal's ruling. It

held that his contract entitled him to his basic annual salary for working five shifts per week of

variable length and he would only be entitled to overtime payments if he worked an extra full or half shift. Whilst H's contract provided no mechanism for flexibility, it was not correct, as the tribunal had purported to do, to elevate that flexibility into an unenforceable contractual obligation which gave rise to a right to additional pay. In any event, there was no justification for implying a term that H would be paid for hours worked over and above his normal working hours other than where the express overtime provisions applied.

Tip. It's perfectly acceptable to have a contractual clause that a salaried employee must work such additional hours in excess of their normal working hours as are reasonably necessary for the proper performance of their duties and/or to meet the needs of the business. Do also be clear that there will be no additional pay for those hours if that's the case.

Tip. This could (but doesn't have to) sit alongside a clause that provides for overtime pay to kick in where an employee reaches a particular threshold of additional hours. If you do have both clauses, ensure, when read together, that they are clear and unambiguous and don't conflict with each other.

Tip. Even if a salaried employee, then regularly exceeds their normal working hours, they will have no right to be paid beyond their basic salary if any overtime clause hasn't been triggered.

The EAT ruled that the employee's contract entitled him to his salary for working five shifts per week of variable length, and there was no implied term that he would be paid for hours worked over his normal hours. If you have a contractual clause that salaried staff may be required to work additional hours, make clear this is for no extra pay if that's the case.