Claimant v The Best Solutions Hull Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Withdrawn by claimant on 28 February 2025.
Claims under sections 44(1)(b) and 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 withdrawn by claimant on 28 February 2025.
The tribunal found insufficient evidence that the claimant made qualifying health and safety disclosures under section 44(1)(c) ERA 1996. Further, the tribunal found the claimant was not subjected to the alleged detriments: work was not planned to prevent rest breaks, there was no excessive CCTV monitoring (only GPS tracking as standard), and phone calls were appropriate and work-related.
The tribunal found the claimant's contract provided an annual salary of £39,000 covering all weekday hours, with overtime only payable for weekends and bank holidays. The claimant was paid correctly for all hours worked, including the one Sunday overtime shift. All hours claimed were Monday-Friday and covered by the salary. The claimant was paid above National Minimum Wage even on his longest working week.
The claim for failure to provide itemised pay statements failed. The tribunal found the respondent provided timely payslips for all payments. Section 8(e) ERA 1996 only requires hours to be stated where pay varies by reference to time worked. The claimant's basic weekly pay did not vary; only the payslip for the week including Sunday overtime needed to show hours, and it did.
Facts
The claimant was employed as an HGV driver for approximately 6 weeks from January to March 2024. He alleged he made health and safety disclosures about lack of PPE, working hours, and vehicle damage, and was subjected to detriments including excessive monitoring, having work planned to prevent rest breaks, and receiving unpleasant phone calls. He also claimed unlawful deduction of wages for unpaid overtime and failure to provide proper payslips. The respondent denied all allegations, maintained detailed tachograph records showing the claimant took proper breaks (missing only 10 minutes on one occasion), provided evidence that vehicles had only external cameras and GPS (not internal CCTV), and showed the claimant's £39,000 salary covered all weekday hours with overtime only for weekends.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found insufficient evidence that the claimant made qualifying health and safety disclosures, and that he was not subjected to the alleged detriments. The respondent did not prevent rest breaks, did not monitor via CCTV (only standard GPS), and phone calls were appropriate. The wages claim failed because the contract clearly provided that the annual salary covered all weekday hours, with overtime only for weekends. The claimant was paid correctly including for his one Sunday shift. The payslip claim failed because the respondent provided proper itemised statements; hours only needed to be shown when pay varied by reference to time, which occurred only once and was properly documented.
Practical note
Clear contractual terms specifying when overtime is payable (e.g. weekends only) will defeat wages claims for additional weekday hours, even where the employee works long hours, provided pay exceeds National Minimum Wage and proper payslips are issued.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1806116/2024
- Decision date
- 23 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- HGV driver
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep