Blair & Ors v Hotel Solutions London Ltd

Where a contract states that overtime is voluntary, an employee becomes entitled to treat additional hours as overtime only when the employer gives notice requesting that the employee work them. A contractual exhortation to co-operate with short-notice overtime does not convert voluntary overtime into a general obligation. An employee who voluntarily works beyond normal hours because they cannot complete assigned work within those hours does not thereby establish an unlawful deduction from wages. An appellate tribunal may uphold an employment tribunal’s decision where its factual findings are clear and its reasons adequately explain the result, even if it would have been helpful to state the relevant legal principles expressly.

The claimants were room attendants employed at a hotel. They claimed unpaid wages on the basis that their workload prevented them from taking the full contractual one-hour break and caused them to work additional time. Their contracts incorporated a collective agreement stating that overtime was voluntary, while requiring co-operation where overtime was requested at short notice.

The Watford Employment Tribunal rejected the claims. It found that the respondent had not required the claimants to work beyond their contracted hours or prevented them from taking their contractual break. The claimants appealed, alleging errors in contractual construction, impermissible alteration of the contract, and inadequate reasons.

1. Appeal dismissed. No error of law was shown in the Employment Tribunal’s dismissal of the unlawful deduction claims.
2. The correct construction of clause 3.01 of the Union Agreement was that overtime remained voluntary. The requirement for employees to co-operate where overtime was required at short notice was an exhortation operating within, and not displacing, that express condition. The employer therefore had to give notice that overtime was requested, whether or not the notice was given at short notice. Employees could then decide whether to undertake the additional work.
3. The claimants’ case depended on the factual proposition that the respondent had effectively required them to work overtime by assigning work which they could not complete while taking their full break. The Employment Tribunal rejected that proposition. It accepted the operations manager’s evidence that the claimants could leave at the allotted time if they had not completed the work, and that any additional hours worked were voluntary. The Employment Appeal Tribunal was entitled to uphold those findings.
4. The Employment Tribunal had also found that the claimants were not prevented from taking any part of their contractual one-hour break. The generalised nature of the complaint and absence of particular dates or instances did not establish an unlawful deduction under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
5. The reasons were sufficiently clear and adequate. Although reference to the relevant legal principles would have been helpful, the central factual findings and the reasoning leading to dismissal were apparent. The challenge based on Meek v City of Birmingham District Council therefore failed.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the judgment of Employment Judge Hyams, promulgated with reasons on 28 April 2011.
• Watford Employment Tribunal: claims for unlawful deductions from wages dismissed.