In Ogumodede v Churchill Contract Services, the case centres around the Working Time Regulations 1998, which set rules for, among other things, maximum weekly working hours, rest periods, and night work. In this claim, the Claimant was employed as a cleaner and worked two jobs, totalling 17 hours of work a day. When the Respondent became aware that the Claimant was working both roles, they dismissed her from one of them. The Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, breach of contract, and failure to pay a redundancy payment. The Tribunal recently dismissed all the Claimant’s claims.

Background

The Respondent in this claim was a contract cleaning company. As a result of two TUPE transfers, the Claimant’s employment was transferred to the Respondent in respect of both jobs. The Claimant began working for the Respondent in March 2018, after it secured the contract to clean the Deutsche Bank’s offices. Under this contract, the Claimant worked 40 hours a week, between 8am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. The Claimant was also employed under a separate contract to clean the Houses of Parliament. Her employment in respect of this contract was transferred to the Respondent when it took over the cleaning contract in May 2024. The Claimant worked 37.5 hours a week under this contract, between 10pm and 6am, Monday to Friday.

It was only once the Claimant’s employment was transferred to the Respondent in respect of the Houses of Parliament role that the Respondent became aware that she was working both jobs. The Respondent was concerned about the Claimant’s working hours, which totalled 17 hours a day with only two breaks: five hours in the evening and two hours in the morning. The Respondent suspended the Claimant from her Houses of Parliament role without pay.

The Claimant brought claims after the Respondent dismissed her from the Houses of Parliament contract. Amongst other things, the Claimant argued that she should have been made redundant, as the Respondent was offering voluntary redundancy around the same time. The Claimant confirmed to the Tribunal that she had been working these hours since 2008 and, despite the long days, she felt “very well” and ensured that she rested on weekends.

Tribunal Decision

The judge commented that it was ‘remarkable’ that the Claimant had been able to sustain these working hours, particularly as it was ‘not in dispute that the Claimant had a clean attendance and disciplinary record’ regarding her work at the Houses of Parliament. Nonetheless, the Tribunal dismissed all the Claimant’s claims.

The Claimant accepted that, when she started working for the initial employer who had the Houses of Parliament contract, she already had the other job and knowingly completed the secondary employment declaration with incorrect information. The Claimant also accepted that she did this because was aware that it breached the law regarding working time.

The Tribunal determined that the Claimant could not rely on her employment contract for claims relating to breach of contract, notice pay, or pay during suspension due to common law illegality, as the Respondent would have been employing her in breach of the Working Time Regulations. Separately, the Tribunal found that the Claimant had not applied for voluntary redundancy and was therefore not entitled to a redundancy payment.

The Tribunal also concluded that the Respondent ‘took a reasonable approach’ and that the process undertaken ‘was clearly fair’. The Respondent had tried to explain to the Claimant that she could continue working at the Houses of Parliament if she agreed to reduce her hours, thereby avoiding breaching the Working Time Regulations. The Respondent had also explained that it chose to suspend her from the Houses of Parliament role rather than the Deutsche Bank role because the hours and pay were better in the latter.

Ultimately, the Tribunal emphasised that the Working Time Regulations exist to prevent employees and workers from risking their own and others’ health and safety by working excessive hours.

Lessons for Employers

The Respondent was put at risk because they were not initially aware of the Claimant’s secondary employment. It is imperative that employers are aware of any additional work their employees undertake to avoid breaching the Working Time Regulations. There are a wide range of penalties for breaching these regulations, including unlimited fines and imprisonment. The key learnings that an employer can take from this are: –

• It is important to have a clear policy on secondary employment and ensure that employees are aware of it.

• Regular check-ins should be conducted to ask employees to confirm any secondary employment and the detail of the employment if there is any.

• Employment contracts should be reviewed to ensure they include provisions regarding secondary employment and the requirement to disclose it to the employer.

How We Can Help

For further information, or to discuss the issues raised within this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.