The Overtime Notice Two Employees Read Differently
Kaveri Logistics circulated a one-paragraph notice to its 240 warehouse employees: "Overtime will be paid at 1.5 times the normal hourly rate to all staff who worked on the stock-count weekend or the annual audit, subject to approval by the shift supervisor."
Two employees read it differently. Ritu worked the stock-count weekend but did not seek prior approval, and has claimed 12 hours of overtime. Farid worked both the stock-count weekend and the audit with written approval, and has also claimed 12 hours. Accounts paid Farid and rejected Ritu's claim, citing the missing approval.
Ritu has written to the HR head arguing that approval was a condition for the work being assigned, not for the payment being made, and that "or" made either event sufficient. The HR head must decide her claim and, separately, fix the wording before the next stock-count. Six similar claims are pending, worth about Rs 41,000 in total, and the shift supervisors say they never refuse approval in practice, they simply never record it.
1. Identify the two separate ambiguities in the notice. For each, name the exact words that create it and state the two readings available.
Read the worked answer
Ambiguity 1 - the scope of "subject to approval by the shift supervisor". The phrase sits at the end of the sentence and could attach to either of two things:
- Reading A (accounts): approval is a precondition of payment - no recorded approval, no overtime.
- Reading B (Ritu): approval is a precondition of the work being assigned - once the supervisor let her work the weekend, the payment obligation arose.
Ambiguity 2 - the word "or" in "the stock-count weekend or the annual audit".
- Inclusive reading: either event, or both together, qualifies a person for payment.
- Exclusive reading: only one of the two qualifies, so a person who did both somehow falls outside the plain words.
The second ambiguity is the weaker one - English drafting normally treats "or" as inclusive unless it says "either ... or" or "but not both" - but it is still a genuine gap, and it is the one that produces the absurd result of penalising Farid for doing extra work.
2. No past practice has been recorded. As an adjudicator rather than the company's advocate, which reading of the approval clause should the HR head apply to the six pending claims, and why?
Read the worked answer
Pay the claims, and treat the approval clause as going to assignment, not to payment. Three reasons, in order of weight:
- Contra proferentem. Kaveri drafted the notice and issued it unilaterally to 240 employees who had no chance to negotiate. Where a drafter creates an ambiguity, the reading against the drafter is preferred. The company cannot rely on its own loose wording to defeat a claim.
- Purpose. Overtime pay exists to compensate hours actually worked beyond the normal day. Ritu worked them; the employer had the benefit of them. A reading that produces payment for nobody, or that turns on a form nobody was told to fill, defeats the clause's purpose.
- Practice cuts both ways, but favours Ritu here. Supervisors "never refuse, they simply never record". Silence is not refusal. The failure is an administrative one on the employer's side.
The HR head should still write to supervisors making written approval mandatory prospectively, so the fix is not retroactive. Paying Rs 41,000 now is cheaper than six months of grievance and a labour inspection.
3. Rewrite the operative sentence in no more than 35 words so that neither ambiguity survives. Keep the supervisor's approval as a real control, if you wish to.
Read the worked answer
One acceptable version (31 words):
"Overtime at 1.5 times the normal hourly rate is payable for hours worked on the stock-count weekend, the audit, or both. Supervisor approval is needed before the work, not for payment."
Why it works:
- "or both" closes the inclusive/exclusive gap explicitly.
- "before the work, not for payment" fixes the attachment of the approval condition instead of leaving it to float at the end of the sentence.
- It names the rate and the trigger in the same clause, so a shop-floor reader does not need to cross-reference.
Note the drafting choice embedded here: if Kaveri actually wants a hard control, it must be enforced at the point of assignment, because a control that operates at the payment stage is a control the employee cannot satisfy after the fact.