Claimant v Radisson Hotel Stansted Airport Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no agreement existed to pay overtime or TOIL. The hours claimed by the claimant were not hours in respect of which wages were properly payable under the contract. The claimant's contract required managers to work additional hours from time to time without additional payment, and overtime/TOIL could only be paid if agreed in advance with line manager/general manager. No such agreement was evidenced.
Tribunal found no agreement to pay for overtime or TOIL existed, therefore there was no breach of contract. The claimant's contractual terms required additional hours without extra payment unless specifically authorised in advance, which had not occurred.
Withdrawn by claimant on 12 December 2024
Facts
Mr Duka worked as Food and Beverage Manager for Radisson Hotel from March 2023 to March 2024. He claimed he worked 688.33 hours overtime and was verbally promised 160 hours TOIL by his managers Mr Kunder and Mr Dewan, which was denied. His contract required managers to work additional hours from time to time without extra payment. TOIL and overtime could only be accumulated if authorised in advance by line manager or general manager. Mr Duka failed to provide witness evidence in accordance with case management directions and relied on his claim form and spreadsheet.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The judge found no credible evidence of any verbal agreement to pay overtime or TOIL. The claimant could not provide details of when, where or how such an agreement was made. The hours claimed on the spreadsheet were not hours in respect of which wages were properly payable — they reflected time spent on premises for personal convenience rather than required work. The contract clearly required advance authorisation for TOIL/overtime which had not been obtained.
Practical note
Managerial contracts routinely require additional hours without extra pay, and tribunals will strictly enforce requirements for advance written authorisation of overtime or TOIL; vague claims of oral agreements without supporting detail or contemporaneous records will fail.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6006288/2024
- Decision date
- 18 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Food and Beverage Manager
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No