Employees sought to establish a contractual right to an enhanced redundancy payment. Lord Coulsfield referred to Duke and said: ‘In a case such as the present, the factors to which Browne-Wilkinson J referred are likely to be among the most important circumstances to be taken into account, but they have to be taken into account along with all the other circumstances of the case. Thus, for example, in our view, the question is not whether the period for which a policy has been followed is ‘substantial’ in some abstract sense, but whether, in relation to the other circumstances, it is sufficient to support the inference that that policy has achieved the status of a contractual term. Again, with regard to communication, the question seems to us to be not so much whether the policy has been made or become known directly to the employees or through intermediaries, but whether the circumstances in which it was made or has become known support the inference that the employers intended to become contractually bound by it.’
Such a situation had only arisen on four occasions in seven years and from the employer’s perspective, payment of the enhanced terms had not been automatic but had required a decision on each occasion: ‘The fact that the employees’ knowledge came from fellow-employees would not preclude the possibility of treating the enhanced terms as established, by custom and practice, as part of the contract; but it is necessary to take that knowledge along with the other circumstances, including the fact that there does not appear to have been any evidence that any employee actually entered into the employment on the faith of an expectation that those terms would be applied.’
Judges:
Lord Coulsfield
Citations:
[1996] IRLR 126
Citing:
Cited – Duke v Reliance Systems Limited EAT 1982
The EAT was asked whether a policy in regard to a retiring age had been communicated to employees or whether there was evidence of any universal practice to that effect. Browne-Wilkinson J said: ‘[T]here was no evidence that the employers’ policy of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Garratt v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd CA 13-Apr-2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant. They made him redundant. He claimed and enhanced payment saying that his emloyment was covered by a collective agreement, but when he refused to sign a compromise agreement, the company paid him only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.434917