Claimant v Hafızlar Gıda London Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant had not proven on the balance of probabilities that his contract was amended to entitle him to paid overtime. There was no sufficiently clear or specific agreement as to overtime rate, amount, or payment dates. The claimant was paid his contractual monthly salary in full and there was no breach of the written contract.
The tribunal concluded that the additional hours worked were not in breach of contract and fell within the 'such other reasonable hours as necessary' clause. Even if they were unreasonable, the claimant had accepted and waived any breach by continuing to work for eight months. Further, the claimant had not established any financial loss arising from breach of contract.
Facts
The claimant worked as a restaurant manager from July 2024 to March 2025, earning a monthly salary for 37.5 hours per week. He worked extensive additional hours (681 hours over 6 months) beyond his contractual requirement. He claimed these were promised to be paid but the respondent said he was only entitled to his monthly salary and that the additional hours were reasonable given his managerial role. The claimant was in a vulnerable position due to his immigration status being dependent on his employment.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that no sufficiently clear contractual amendment had been proven to entitle the claimant to paid overtime, as there was no agreement on rate, amount, or payment dates. The extensive additional hours did not breach the 'reasonable additional hours' clause in his contract, and even if they did, the claimant had waived any breach by continuing to work for eight months without raising the issue.
Practical note
Vague promises of 'compensation' for additional hours do not create a contractual right to overtime pay unless there is clear agreement on rate and payment terms; managers working extensive hours beyond contract may still fall within 'reasonable additional hours' clauses.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 6017399/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- restaurant manager
- Service
- 8 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No