Leeds employment tribunal denies £96 wage claim over unproven approval for six extra hours

The employment tribunal serving Leeds denied Bethany Cole’s claim for £96 from Brindle Homeware Ltd for six extra hours of work. It found that she had worked the hours without payment, but had not proved that her manager approved them as her signed employment terms required. No payment was ordered.

The dispute turned on the difference between completing work and establishing permission to work additional paid hours. Cole said her manager told her to finish a stock count; Brindle relied on the absence of recorded approval. Neither the unpaid hours nor the £16 hourly rate was in dispute.

The tribunal separated the calculation from the entitlement to payment. The accepted attendance and payroll records established six unpaid hours, and the signed terms established their £96 value. That accounting did not, by itself, satisfy the separate approval condition.

Cole’s account of the stock-count instruction supported her explanation for staying. But it appeared as an attributed account in a submission, rather than a produced message or independent witness account. It did not establish the manager’s precise words or approval for the full six hours.

The tribunal did not treat the missing document as proof that no instruction occurred. It also rejected Brindle’s contention that an approval form was the only permissible route: the terms required manager approval and asked staff to use a form, without making the form exclusive.

That distinction did not resolve the evidential gap in Cole’s favour. She had to establish the approval on which her request depended; Brindle did not have to disprove her account. The limited detail and lack of supporting evidence left that requirement unproven.

Cole argued that the instruction to finish the stock count amounted to approval to stay and complete the work. She relied on the recorded hours and contractual rate, while acknowledging that no written or independent proof of the instruction was available and that it did not specify six hours.

Brindle sought rejection of the claim, arguing that recorded attendance did not establish authorised paid work. It maintained that Cole knew approval and a completed form were required, and said the absence of another stated method meant the form was mandatory.

The employer nevertheless acknowledged that it did not know whether the manager had authorised the hours. It identified no witness or other evidence establishing that the manager had not given an instruction.

The six additional hours were recorded across two evenings and remained unpaid. Cole’s signed terms set the hourly rate at £16 and required shop-manager approval before additional hours were worked.

The decision leaves open whether the manager gave an instruction or otherwise approved extra work. It does not find that Cole failed to work the hours, nor that approval could only be documented on a form. The claim failed because approval was not established on the evidence presented; the judgment recorded that no further obtainable proof had been identified at closing and an adjournment was unavailable.