The Claimant is employed by the Respondent and, under his original terms and conditions of employment for his current role, he was guaranteed 20 hours of overtime a week, to be paid at 1.5 times the applicable hourly rate. In 2016, the Respondent negotiated a new agreement with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers ("USDAW") which generally reduced the premiums paid for overtime. The Claimant contended that that part of the agreement did not apply to him, and brought a claim for unlawful deduction of wages. The ET concluded that the agreement with USDAW was incorporated into the Claimant's contract, and so the reduction in premiums paid for overtime applied to him. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in law by assuming that, just because the agreement with USDAW was incorporated into the Claimant's contract, every term of the agreement was also incorporated; it should have considered whether there was a term in the agreement which was apt for incorporation into the Claimant's contract and which removed the entitlement to the 1.5 premium. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed and the case remitted to the ET for it to consider the appropriate remedy.