The tribunal had been asked as to the circumstances under which the acceptance of new employment terms can be inferred from an employee’s continuing to work.
Browne-Wilkinson P said: ‘The starting point must be that a contract of employment cannot simply be silent on the place of work; if there is no express term, there must be either some rule of law that in all contracts of employment the employer is (or alternatively is not) entitled to transfer the employee from his original place of work or some term regulating the matter must be implied into each contract.’
Browne-Wilkinson J said: ‘In our view, to imply an agreement to vary or to raise an estoppel against the employee on the grounds that he has not objected to a false record by the employers of the terms actually agreed is a course which should be adopted with great caution. If the variation relates to a matter which has immediate practical application (e.g. the rate of pay) and the employee continues to work without objection after effect has been given to the variation (e.g. his pay packet has been reduced) then obviously he may well be taken to have impliedly agreed. But where, as in the present case, the variation has no immediate practical effect the position is not the same. It is the view of both members of this Tribunal with experience in industrial relations (with which the Chairman, without such experience, agrees) that it is asking too much of the ordinary employee to require him either to object to an erroneous statement of his terms of employment having no immediate practical impact on him or be taken to have assented to the variation. So to hold would involve an unrealistic view of the inclination and ability of the ordinary employee to read and fully understand such statements.
Even if he does read the statement and can understand it, it would be unrealistic of the law to require him to risk a confrontation with his employer on a matter which has no immediate practical impact on the employee. For those reasons, as at present advised, we would not be inclined to imply any assent to a variation from mere failure by the employee to object to the unilateral alteration by the employer of the terms of employment contained in a statutory statement.’
Browne-Wilkinson J P
 UKEAT 523 – 80 – 1610,  IRLR 477
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 81
Cited – GAP Personnel Franchises Ltd v Robinson EAT 16-Oct-2007
EAT Contract of employment – Damages for breach of contract
Unlawful deduction from wages
Whether express term of contract as to mileage expenses was consensually varied by the Claimant’s . .
Cited – Star Newspapers Ltd v Jordan EAT 22-Nov-1993
Cited – Anglia Regional Co-Operative Society v O’Donnell EAT 24-Feb-1994
Cited – Lombard North Central Plc v Leach and Another EAT 28-Nov-1994
Cited – Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods Plc EAT 9-Oct-1995
Cited – Amin v London Underground Ltd EAT 25-Apr-1997
Cited – O’Connell v Thames Water Utilities Plc EAT 10-Jun-1999
EAT Redundancy – Other . .
Cited – K O’Flynn v Airlinks the Airport Coach Company Limited EAT 15-Mar-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. . .
Cited – Stephen Nigel Millard v Grampian Joint Fire Board OHCS 21-Dec-1999
Cited – McBride v Calcast Ltd NIIT 15-Jan-2003
Cited – Mcbride v Calcast Ltd (Unlawful Deduction of Wages) NIIT 15-Jan-2003
Cited – Hodgson and others v Toray Textiles Europe Ltd ChD 9-Mar-2007
Cited – Wilson (T/A Reds) v Lamb EAT 12-Jun-2007
Cited – Luke v Stoke-On-Trent City Council CA 24-Jul-2007
The employee appealed against a decision rejecting her claim that the employer had made an unlawful deduction from her salary. . .
Cited – Harlow v Artemis International Corporation Ltd QBD 22-May-2008
Claim for damages – enhanced redundancy payment. . .
Cited – Lindsey Beveridge v KLM UK Ltd EAT 16-Feb-2000
EAT The claimant appealed refusal of her claim for unlawful deduction. She had been off sick long term. Her doctor certified her fit to return, and she asked to return, but her employer waited a further six weeks . .
Cited – Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper and others EAT 31-Jul-2003
The court was asked whether, following a TUPE transfer, a contractual term with regard to the making of enhanced redundancy payments had been preserved.
Held: Elias J said: ‘The fundamental question is this: is the employee’s conduct, by . .
Cited – Khatri v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank Ba CA 23-Apr-2010
The claimant appealed against refusal of summary judgment on his claim for payment of a discretionary employment bonus by the defendant.
Held: The appeal succeeded and summary judgment was given. The contract properly construed did give rise . .
Cited – Courtaulds Northern Spinning Ltd v Sibson CA 1988
The employee driver had complained of a change in the base from which he was employed. The contract of employment was silent as to whether the employer had any right to transfer the employee from one depot to another, and the employer asked that a . .
Cited – Davies v London Borough of Haringey QBD 17-Oct-2014
The claimant had been employed as a teaching assistant. She came to work with the union, eventually being released from her work full time to undertake the role within the union. The defendant suspended the claimant from her role for alleged . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 February 2021; Ref: scu.248976