The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) (reversing the decision of the Employment Tribunal) in the case of Vision Events (UK) Limited v Paterson held that in the absence of an expressed entitlement to payment in respect of accrued flexitime it was not necessary to imply the existence of such an agreement.
In this case Mr Paterson had accrued over 1,000 hours of flexitime. During a redundancy consultation he demanded payment of it and when payment was not made he raised an action for"unlawful deduction of wages". He based his case on the existence of an implied term that if he did not get to take the flexitime he would be paid in lieu of it. However, the EAT held that before a Tribunal implies the existence of a term into a contract it must be satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the business of efficacy.
Although this is a narrow escape for the particular employer in question, it would be worth checking your own organisation's policies in respect of"time off in lieu" of flexitime.