Claimant v Markon Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent paid the claimant for all authorized overtime. The claimant's notebook purporting to show additional hours worked was found not to be a contemporaneous document. The contract required overtime to be authorized to be properly payable. Hours claimed but not authorized were not properly payable under s.13(3) ERA 1996, so no deduction occurred.
The claimant alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence when the respondent amended timesheets without consultation. The tribunal found the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to amend timesheets for accuracy and invoicing purposes, given the operational context and that itemized payslips allowed employees to query discrepancies. Even if there was a breach, the claimant suffered no financial loss as he was paid for all hours actually worked.
Facts
The claimant was a signs installation foreman employed from July 2019 to January 2025. He claimed unpaid overtime, alleging his timesheets were altered without consent and he was underpaid. He produced a notebook purporting to show weekly overtime hours worked from November 2020. The respondent denied the claims, produced original timesheets showing all authorized overtime was paid, and argued the notebook was created retrospectively in 2025. The claimant raised a grievance in May 2024 about altered timesheets but never mentioned the notebook or quantified his claim until after receiving the respondent's timesheets in March 2025.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found the claimant's notebook was not a contemporaneous document but was created after March 2025, undermining his credibility. The respondent's timesheets were found to be genuine. The tribunal held that only authorized overtime was properly payable under the contract, and all such overtime had been paid. The breach of contract claim failed because the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to amend timesheets without prior consultation, given operational pressures and the availability of itemized payslips allowing employees to query discrepancies.
Practical note
Credibility of documentary evidence is crucial: a claimant who produces a purportedly contemporaneous notebook but never mentioned it during a grievance process or when asked to particularize a claim will face significant credibility challenges, especially where contractual entitlement to payment depends on prior authorization.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001824/2024
- Decision date
- 3 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Markon Limited
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Signs installation foreman
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep