Brake Bros Win Unpaid Wages Appeal: Driver's Overtime Claim Dismissed
Brake Bros successfully appealed an Employment Tribunal ruling, dismissing a driver's claim for unpaid wages related to hours worked above his average contracted hours.
• public
Brake Bros Prevail in Employment Appeal Tribunal Over Unpaid Wages Claim
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a previous ruling, siding with Brake Bros Ltd in a dispute over unpaid wages claimed by a lorry driver, Mr S Hudek. The case, Brake Bros Ltd v Hudek [2025] EAT 53, centred around whether Mr Hudek was entitled to additional payments for working hours exceeding his contracted average.
Background to the Claim
Mr Hudek, employed by Brake Bros as a lorry driver, filed a claim under Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, arguing he was owed wages for hours worked beyond his contracted weekly hours between 2021 and 2022. He sought pro-rata payments based on his annual salary for these additional hours.
His employment contract stipulated five shifts per week, with an intended average shift length of nine hours (later adjusted to 9.4 hours). However, the contract also mandated working such hours as necessary for the proper performance of duties. Crucially, overtime was contractually payable only for additional half or full shifts, with a half shift defined as a minimum of 4.5 hours.
Tribunal's Initial Decision
The original Employment Tribunal concluded that Mr Hudek's contract implied a term for 'averaging out' working hours. They argued that if this 'averaging out' didn't occur within a reasonable timeframe, Mr Hudek should be compensated for all hours exceeding the intended average.
EAT's Ruling and Reasoning
Lord Fairley, President of the EAT, overturned the Employment Tribunal's decision. The EAT held that the contract, when properly interpreted, entitled Mr Hudek to his basic salary for working five shifts per week, regardless of their variable length. The EAT found that implying a term for payment of hours exceeding the intended average, outside of the express overtime provisions, lacked justification based on business efficacy or the unexpressed intentions of the parties at the time of contract agreement.
The EAT emphasised that the contract explicitly defined overtime as applying only to additional shifts or half-shifts, not to extended standard shifts. Implying a term contradicting these express provisions was deemed an error of law.
The claimant's argument hinged on the 'averaging out' principle and the flexitime agreement that was the heart of the contract. The court found that the flexibility did not mean there had to be payment for hours.
Implications for Employers
This case highlights the importance of clearly defined and unambiguous terms in employment contracts, particularly regarding working hours and overtime. Employers should ensure that contractual provisions accurately reflect the intended working arrangements and payment structures. The decision also underscores the limitations on implying terms into detailed commercial contracts, especially when express terms already address the relevant subject matter.
Read the entire judgement here: Brake Bros Ltd v Hudek [2025] EAT 53
