EAT upholds Brake Bros over wages

In a landmark decision delivered on 28 April 2025, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled in the case of Brake Bros Ltd v S Hudek, focusing on the interpretation of employment contracts and claims for unpaid wages. The case, identified as number 53, examined whether Mr S Hudek, a lorry driver employed by Brake Bros Ltd, was entitled to additional remuneration for hours that exceeded his contracted schedule based on the provisions contained in his employment contract.

Mr Hudek's employment began on 18 February 2019, and his complaint arose from allegations of unpaid wages. He stated that he frequently worked beyond the hours stipulated in his contract and argued for pro-rata payments for these additional hours. His complaint was filed under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, addressing unpaid wages.

The terms of Mr Hudek's contract specified that he was to work five shifts a week, with an average shift length of nine hours. Furthermore, the contract stipulated that overtime would only be applicable for additional shifts lasting a minimum of 4.5 hours. Mr Hudek based his argument on the tribunal's interpretation that he was entitled to compensation for any extra hours worked over the agreed average.

Initially, the employment tribunal sided with Mr Hudek, asserting that his contract implied a term granting him payment for any excess hours worked, resulting in a partial payment due for these additional hours. However, this decision was contested by Brake Bros Ltd, leading to the appeal.

Upon review, the EAT found the tribunal had erred in inferring such a term within the contract. The EAT rejected the interpretation that sought to "average out" hours worked as an implied obligation, stating, "Properly construed, the contract entitled the claimant to his basic salary for working 5 shifts per week of variable length."

In its ruling, the EAT noted that the terms of Mr Hudek's contract explicitly defined the parameters for his basic pay, which depended on the completion of the specified shifts. The judgement underscored the limitations on overtime provisions within the contract, which applied only when a driver took on a full or half additional shift.

The tribunal's reliance on an implied obligation was found to be inconsistent with the express terms of the contract. The ruling articulated that "neither business efficacy nor the unexpressed intention of the parties justified the implication of a term." This decision sets a vital precedent that emphasises the importance of clear contracts, particularly regarding the differentiated treatment of terms for drivers compared to other hourly-paid staff.

The EAT ultimately dismissed Mr Hudek's claim and set aside the original employment tribunal's judgement. This ruling highlights the necessity for contractual clarity and reinforces that both employers and employees must consider contractual agreements in their entirety. The judgement serves as a reminder to employees regarding the importance of understanding their contractual terms while providing guidance for employers in drafting clear contracts for their workforce.