Mr Altin Duka v Radisson Hotel Stansted Airport Ltd — 2025

Mr Duka worked as Food and Beverage Manager from 13 March 2023 to 13 March 2024. He claimed that he had worked significant additional hours and was entitled to be paid for them or receive time off in lieu, saying that there had been an oral agreement with managers that his overtime would be compensated in that way. The respondent relied on the written manager contract and the contractual handbook, which said that manager-contract staff were expected to work additional hours without extra pay and that any lieu time or overtime had to be authorised in advance.

The tribunal found that there was no proved verbal agreement to pay Mr Duka for overtime or TOIL. It accepted that he appeared genuinely to believe he was owed money, but held that his evidence did not establish when, where, or with whom such an agreement had been made. The judge also treated the holiday-carry-over material as unhelpful because holidays were governed by different terms and the correspondence suggested that any variation to pay arrangements needed to be in writing and authorised.

On the hours claimed, the tribunal found Mr Duka's spreadsheet and explanations unreliable. It noted that the spreadsheet included occasions where he had not clocked in or out, that he had not allowed for breaks, and that he was unable to explain how some figures had been calculated. The judge found that the messages between the parties showed a friendly working relationship and did not support the assertion that Mr Duka was required to work 688.33 overtime hours over nine months. The tribunal also found that the exchanges were within the scope of his managerial role and that he could set boundaries on his working life.

The tribunal concluded that the hours recorded were not hours in respect of which wages were properly payable, and so the unlawful deductions from wages complaint failed. It also concluded that there was no breach of contract because there was no agreement to pay overtime or TOIL, and the breach of contract claim was dismissed as well. The separate unfair dismissal claim mentioned in the reasons had been withdrawn before the hearing and was not decided.