A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling in Brake Bros v Hudek has underlined the risks to fleets of unclear contracts in pay disputes. A truck driver claimed for additional pay after his average shifts exceeded 10 hours, arguing that longer shifts should be balanced with shorter ones or compensated.
While the Employment Tribunal initially backed him, the EAT overturned this, ruling the express terms of the contract – which allowed flexible shift lengths – took precedence. The decision highlights the danger to fleets: if contractual wording is ambiguous or inconsistent with working practices, employers could face costly claims.
Fleets must ensure contracts explicitly define working hours, overtime rules and pay entitlements, especially where roles involve irregular schedules. Even if claims fail, disputes can damage staff relations and raise compliance issues, including inadvertent breaches of National Minimum Wage law.
The case is a stark warning for fleets to review contracts carefully, align them with operational realities, and avoid leaving room for implied terms that undermine express provisions. Clear drafting is critical to reduce legal exposure and maintain workforce trust.
“This decision underscores the importance of carefully drafted contractual provisions,” said Christine Jamieson of Lindsays