Ms A Rodrigues v Al Semat UK Limited — 2024

Ms Rodrigues was employed from 1 June 2021 as a Family Business Coordinator. Although her contract said there was no entitlement to overtime and that TOIL could be authorised only in exceptional circumstances, the tribunal found the written terms did not reflect the working arrangements in practice. It accepted her evidence that her role was wider than a fixed office job, that she worked long additional hours across properties and office duties, and that Mr Bajallan knew of those hours through messages and timesheets.

The tribunal found there was a contractual practice of allowing employees to accrue overtime and claim it at the end of employment, based on the evidence of other employees including Ms Muntianu, Ms Voloskova, Ms Days and Olha. It rejected the respondent's case that the claimant had not worked overtime or had failed to follow an approval process, finding that she had been told to record her hours and that there was no separate requirement for signed approval in her case. It held the respondent breached contract by failing to pay accrued overtime on termination and that the same failure also amounted to an unlawful deduction from wages.

On the separate claim for work done between 2 and 8 September 2022, the tribunal found the claimant worked at the respondent's request to complete handover tasks after her resignation and after being told her entitlements, including extra time, would be paid promptly. It found she was paid for 1 September 2022 but not for 2 to 8 September 2022, and awarded 36 hours at £17.30 per hour. The agreed overtime figure was 869 hours at £17.30 per hour, producing £15,033.70, and the unpaid September work produced £622.80, making a total award of £15,656.50.