Williams v Staffordshire County Council

Where a collective employment code distinguishes work outside normal hours within the standard week from overtime beyond that week, the provisions governing the former do not qualify the latter. An overtime clause fixing the rate does not itself create a general entitlement if entitlement is conditional on a contractual obligation to work beyond standard hours. Continuing to volunteer for overtime during a genuine dispute about pay does not, by itself, establish acquiescence in the employer’s proposed rate. Entitlement must arise from an express or incorporated contractual term, a valid local arrangement, or an established contractual practice. No such basis entitled the claimant to time-and-a-half.

The appellant was employed by the respondent council as a receptionist. His contract incorporated the National Joint Council conditions and required a 37-hour week. He volunteered for overtime between 22 December 1992 and 30 September 1998, for which the council paid the plain hourly rate.

A District Judge gave judgment for the appellant. His Honour Judge Mitchell allowed the council’s appeal, construing paragraph 38 as inapplicable and finding that the appellant had acquiesced in the plain rate. The appeal concerned the proper construction of the overtime provisions and whether continued voluntary work during a pay dispute established acquiescence.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Tuckey gave the first judgment and Lord Justice Pill agreed.

1. Construction of paragraph 38. Paragraph 38(2)(a) addresses work outside the authority’s usual hours that forms part of the employee’s normal 37-hour week. Paragraph 38(2)(b) addresses work beyond the normal working week, namely overtime. Paragraph 38(2)(a) does not qualify paragraph 38(2)(b).
2. Overtime entitlement. Paragraph 38(2)(b) operates as a code. Sub-paragraph (iii) identifies the officers entitled to overtime payments under the code: those for whom working more than 37 hours is a condition of employment. Sub-paragraph (iv) fixes the rate of payment but creates no free-standing general entitlement. Sub-paragraph (v) reinforces the restricted scope of the code for planned overtime.
3. Application. The appellant was not contractually required to work more than 37 hours. Paragraph 40(d) did not assist him because no local arrangement or other contractual term provided for payment at time-and-a-half. The claim therefore failed in the absence of an express or incorporated contractual entitlement, or a proved contractual practice.
4. Acquiescence. The court rejected the alternative finding that the appellant had acquiesced in payment at the plain rate. Continued voluntary work does not, without more, establish acceptance of a disputed payment rate where there is a genuine continuing dispute and the work is performed without prejudice to either party’s position.
5. Costs. There was no order as to costs in the Court of Appeal. The orders below were modified so that the respondent’s costs were £2,500 before the District Judge and £1,000 before the Circuit Judge.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 6 July 2001, the court dismissed the appeal in [2001] EWCA Civ 1116. Pill LJ agreed with the judgment of Tuckey LJ.
2. Stoke-on-Trent County Court: On 13 March 2000, His Honour Judge Mitchell allowed the council’s appeal from judgment given for the appellant by District Judge Schroeder.