EAT Contract of Employment: Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term -m UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Southern Cross Healthcare Co Ltd v Perkins [2011] ICR 285 that the Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction to construe a Statement of Written Particulars in a claim under Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’) section 11 applies equally where it is necessary to construe a contract in order to determine a claim under ERA section 13 not to suffer an unauthorised deduction from wages. For these purposes a decision on whether terms are to be implied into the contract also falls within the Southern Cross prohibition on construction. Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust [2016] AC 742 considered.
As it was necessary in determining the Claimant’s claim under section 13 for wages referable to clinical duties to decide on the construction of her contract of employment with the First Respondent for academic work for them and clinical work for the Second Respondent including whether it contained implied terms regarding her ability to perform such duties the Employment Judge did not err in deciding that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine her claim. Such a claim would have to be pursued in the Civil Courts.
Judges:
Slade DBE J
Citations:
[2017] UKEAT 0210 – 16 – 2203
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582055
