School caretaker wins key ruling on overtime and pensionable pay

Mr Skingle was a school caretaker who was often required to do overtime. When he retired he found that his pension was based on his basic earnings excluding overtime.

Skingle argued that since the rate of pay for overtime was stated in his contract it was part of his contractual earnings and should have been included in the calculation of earnings for pension purposes.

The case went to the High Court which ruled that overtime was not contractual. Skingle did not have to do it as part of his contract. The only contractual aspect was the rate of pay that he would receive should he accept overtime work. Skingle's pensionable pay had therefore been correctly assessed on his remuneration without his overtime pay.

Skingle took the case to the Court of Appeal.

The ruling

The Court of Appeal held that Skingle was contractually required to do the overtime and that it was "not realistic" to suggest that he could refuse to do it.

The ruling means that employees whose contracts require them to do overtime should be able to have this element of their pay included in pensionable earnings.

* Skingle v LB Newham, Court of Appeal [2003]