The Employment Rights Bill in the UK, which is currently being considered in the House of Lords, includes provisions to extend certain employment rights to the estates of deceased workers, particularly in cases related to zero-hours contracts. This means that even after a worker’s death, their family or estate could potentially claim compensation if the employer breached the new rules regarding zero-hours contracts.
The Bill aims to ban exploitative zero-hours contracts by introducing a right to guaranteed hours for qualifying workers. After a defined period, employers will be required to offer these workers a guaranteed number of hours based on their average work.
If an employer fails to offer these guaranteed hours or violates other related provisions, a worker’s estate or representative (like a close family member) can bring a claim against the employer.
Compensation would be awarded based on the financial loss suffered by the deceased worker or their estate, similar to how other employment tribunal claims are handled.
This provision extends the principle that employment tribunal claims can be brought after a worker’s death, which already applies in cases of unfair dismissal, redundancy, or other individual rights.
Appeal Tribunal Overturns Driver’s Unpaid Wages Claim in Shift Hours Dispute
In the case of Brake Bros Ltd v Mr S Hudek Mr. Hudek, a lorry driver employed by Brake Bros Ltd, claimed he was owed unpaid wages for regularly working longer hours than his contract specified. He argued that he should be compensated based on his salary for these extra hours, even if they didn’t count as formal overtime shifts.
The initial employment tribunal ruled in Mr. Hudek’s favour. It noted that while his contract mentioned average working hours and overtime, it didn’t address what should happen if his actual hours consistently exceeded the agreed average. The tribunal concluded that it was reasonable to imply a term into the contract: if the company didn’t offset longer shifts with shorter ones, it should pay him for the additional time. As a result, Mr. Hudek was awarded nearly £4,700.
However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned this decision. The appeal judge ruled that:
- Hudek’s contract clearly allowed for variable shift lengths.
- Overtime pay was only due for full or half additional shifts, not simply when regular shifts ran longer.
- There was no legal justification to imply a new contractual term requiring extra pay for consistently longer-than-average shifts.
- The existing contract, including a specific addendum for his depot, already outlined how working hours and pay were to be handled for drivers—distinctly different from warehouse staff, and these differences were intentional.
The previous tribunal decision and the £4,700 award were overturned.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
