Many of us work long hours. Some more than others, and to ensure we don’t put our health at risk by working excessive hours, the Working Time Regulations (WTR) were introduced in 1998.
Ms M Ogumodede v Churchill Contract Services [2025]
For over 16 years, Ms Ogumodede clocked up an incredible 77 ½ hours a week. During the day she was employed by Churchill Contract Services as a cleaner at Deutsche Bank working 8am to 5pm followed by a night shift at the Houses of Parliament working 10pm until 6am. Neither employer was aware of the work Ms Ogumodede was doing for the other.
“It is remarkable that she was able to sustain this in circumstances where it was not in dispute that the claimant had a clean attendance and disciplinary record in respect of her Houses of Parliament work”
Employment Judge Woodhead
Ms Ogumodede could possibly have continued to juggle the two jobs (health permitting) for years to come. However, when Churchill Contract Services took on the Houses of Parliament contract, they discovered what Ms Ogumodede had been up to. During a TUPE transfer, outgoing employers are obliged to provide specific information about each member of the transferring workforce to the new employer.
Faced with the breach of the WTR and her failure to disclose her other job, Churchill suspended Ms Ogumodede without pay. Rather than instantly dismissing, Churchill explored a range of solutions: offering reduced shifts (6pm to 9pm), alternative roles, and voluntary redundancy. Ms Ogumodede turned down every offer and her employment was terminated.
Ms Ogumodede was convinced she had been unfairly dismissed and additionally claimed for breach of contract, unauthorised wage deductions, and redundancy pay at the tribunal.
What did the Tribunal decide?
The tribunal dismissed all her claims, ruling that the dismissal was fair, the contract was unenforceable due to common law illegality (by virtue of the breach of the WTR), and that Churchill had acted reasonably in trying to accommodate her by offering alternative working arrangements to rectify the problem, before resorting to dismissal.
The WTR specify that there must be at least 11 hours of rest between shifts. Ms Ogumodede’s 77.5 hour work week made this impossible and her contract unenforceable under common law.
Employers have always had a duty to monitor their employees’ working time, and this includes taking account of any hours undertaken in secondary employment. However, it is an incredibly difficult monitoring exercise as it generally relies upon accurate information being provided by the employee. It is wise to make providing this information a term of the employment contract.
Learning points for employers
Employers have a duty to ensure staff do not work hours that could breach the working time rules or pose health and safety risks. This can be particularly important following a TUPE transfer, where employees may already hold second jobs. Taking steps to identify and address excessive working hours is essential. Dismissal may be fair if the employer acts reasonably, considers alternatives and clearly explains the health and safety implications. It is also good practice to remind staff to disclose any additional employment so that working time and rest requirements can be properly managed.
Fair Work Agency
The government’s new employment rights enforcement body, the Fair Work Agency (FWA), will be responsible for monitoring employers’ compliance with working time obligations such as safe working hours and patterns, as well as holiday leave and pay.
It is anticipated the FWA will be up and running by April 2026 (subject to any delays with the government’s Employment Rights Bill roadmap).
Although the FWA’s key role will be to monitor and enforce employment law compliance by employers, it will also assist individuals to enforce their rights. As such, it may be that the FWA would advise individuals such as the claimant in this case to better understand their legal position, which could potentially have avoided her bringing this unsuccessful claim.
Philip McCabe
4 November 2025