Use it or lose it — EAT refuses to imply term requiring payment for unused flexitime
The claimant in Vision Events (UK) Ltd v Paterson worked as an event technician. He was paid a salary and an hourly rate for overtime. When he was promoted to the position of multimedia producer, his salary increased from £21,000 to £28,000 but his overtime pay ceased. He was, however, entitled to participate in a flexitime scheme, whereby if he worked more than his contractual 45 hours a week he was entitled to take time off at a time to suit his employer. There was no documentation in the handbook or the contract of employment on how accrued but untaken flexi-hours would be dealt with on termination of employment.
When, four years later, the claimant was made redundant, he asked to be paid for in excess of 1,000 hours of flexitime. His employer offered to pay a portion of the hours but the claimant refused and the offer was withdrawn. At the employment tribunal, his claim for unfair dismissal was rejected but the unlawful deductions from wages claim for failure to pay the flexitime hours succeeded and the employer was ordered to pay him more than £12,000…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump