Decision: The EAT overturned an Employment  Tribunal’s decision that an employee, who was not paid  on termination of employment for extra hours worked  under a flexi-hours scheme, had suffered an unlawful  deduction from wages. In a majority decision, the EAT  held that in the absence of an express term in the  scheme regarding payment on termination, the  Employment Tribunal was incorrect to imply a term  that the employee was entitled to be paid for accrued  hours that he had not taken off in lieu. In the majority’s  view, it was not necessary for the purposes of business  efficacy to imply such a term and it was not a term  which both parties would have agreed to when entering  into the contract. 

Impact: Employment contracts should ideally provide  that employees will not permit flexi-hours to build up  beyond a certain level, given the obvious difficulties  that will arise if the contract is then terminated. More  importantly, employers should specify what will happen  when the contract ends, and whether flexi-hours will be  paid for. This case also serves as a helpful reminder that  where the Courts are looking at implying terms into a  contract of employment, they can do so only in relatively limited circumstances.  

Vision Events (UK) Limited v Paterson