Introduction to Working Time Regulations (WTR)
The Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR) protects employees from being required to work excessive hours by limiting total weekly hours and providing for mandatory daily and weekly rest breaks. Additional restrictions apply to night work. Employers are under a duty to monitor each employee’s working time, including hours worked in other forms of employment, but this can be difficult to check in practice. The recent case of Ogumodede v Churchill Contract Services illustrates the difficulties involved where an employee is found to be working in breach of the WTR.
For over 16 years, Ms Ogumodede worked two full-time cleaning roles, one at Deutsche Bank from 8am to 5pm, and one at the Houses of Parliament from 10pm to 6am. Neither employer was aware of the other role, as Ms Ogumodede deliberately chose to conceal it. In 2018, following a TUPE transfer, Churchill Contract Services took over the Deutsche Bank contract. In 2024, Churchill also took over the Houses of Parliament contract. At that point it was discovered that Ms Ogumodede was working a total of 77.5 hours per week, in breach of the WTR. Churchill immediately suspended Ms Ogumodede without pay from her night shift and offered her various alternatives, including reduced shifts, other roles and voluntary redundancy. Since she refused all these offers, her employment at the Houses of Parliament was terminated, although she continued to work day shifts at Deutsche Bank.
Employment Tribunal Decision
In relation to her dismissal from the Houses of Parliament role, Ms Ogumodede brought claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay, unauthorised deductions from wages relating to her unpaid suspension, and redundancy pay.
The Employment Tribunal rejected all these claims, ruling that Ms Ogumodede was fairly dismissed. It noted that Ms Ogumodede had intentionally concealed information about her two jobs because she knew it breached the WTR. Although she maintained that she wanted to work such long hours, the Tribunal emphasised the strong health and safety and public policy grounds for statutory limits on working time and rest breaks, particularly regarding night work. Failing to ensure that workers complied with these limits also had serious enforcement implications for Churchill and its managers. It was clear that Churchill could not continue to employ Ms Ogumodede for the night shifts without breaching the law, and this was a fair reason for dismissal. Churchill had also acted reasonably in its investigation and consultation process, and in offering alternative working arrangements. Since Ms Ogumodede contract was illegal at common law, she could not claim for notice or suspension pay. Ms Ogumodede’s claim for a redundancy payment also failed because her dismissal did not fall within the statutory definition of redundancy.
Summary
This case highlights that employers have a duty to ensure that employees do not breach the statutory rules on working time and rest breaks. It is advisable to require staff to disclose accurate information about hours worked in other employment and to issue regular reminders. If an employee cannot continue to work without breaching the WTR, this may be a fair reason for dismissal. However, where a potential breach is identified, it is essential to act reasonably and to follow a fair procedure. This should include explaining the health and safety and employment law implications and consulting with the employee about suitable alternatives.
