EAT Contract of Employment : Damages for Breach of Contract – Implied Term Variation/Construction of Term
The Claimant Market Patrol Officers disputed the grade and consequent pay they were awarded following the implementation of a Single Status pay and grading review by their employer Sheffield Council. They appealed, but were never officially informed of the outcome until after they raised a grievance complaining they had not been told. The result of the grievance was that they were told (in a letter from the HR Consultant tasked with responding to it) that the Appeal Panel had decided they would be placed on Grade 5 (whereas they had previously been placed on Grade 3). They worked on in the expectation this would be honoured, but their pay did not change. The employer contended that the letter was mistaken, and reconvened the appeal panel to determine what it had actually decided (which was a lesser increase, to Grade 4). An EJ concluded that the letter was of no contractual effect, since it was written in response to a grievance, and its author had no actual nor ostensible authority to make decisions as to pay and grading. He thought he did not need to determine whether there had been mutual mistake, such as to vitiate any apparent contract. It was held on appeal that he was wrong: in context, the letter responded to a complaint that the employees had not been told what the decision as to their grade was, by telling them. It was written by someone who was authorised to tell them what had been decided, even if she was not authorised to decide questions of pay herself. The issue of mistake was critical, however, and this would be remitted to a fresh Tribunal. The judge also erred in his reasoning as to a subsidiary issue – the meaning given by the Respondents to ‘salary’ in their pay and grading process, though it was unclear how this affected the result.
Langstaff P J
[2014] UKEAT 0033 – 14 – 1607
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535107