EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Implied term/variation/construction of term
The Employment Tribunal had erred in concluding that a term in the letters of appointment of the Claimants enabled the employer to vary the contract unilaterally; the term was unclear and probably ambiguous – Wandsworth London Borough Council v D’Silva [1998] IRLR 193 and Security and Facilities Division v Hayes [2001] IRLR 81 considered and Bateman v Asda Stores Limited [2010] IRLR 370 distinguished. Alternatively, even if the term fell to be construed together with the HR manual and even if that provided for variation in specific circumstances, those circumstances had not been relied upon by the employer when purporting to make the variation and had not been advanced at the Employment Tribunal. Appeal allowed and particulars substituted pursuant to section 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Hand QC HHJ
[2014] UKEAT 0276 – 14 – 1512
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551978
