The Claimants were made redundant by the Respondent in 2017 and received statutory redundancy payments. They claimed that they were contractually entitled to enhanced redundancy payments, on the basis that either a 1999 collective agreement had been incorporated into their contracts, or in the alternative, a term for such payments had been implied into their contracts by custom and practice. The Employment Tribunal rejected both claims. The Claimants appealed on the custom and practice issue only.
Held, dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal had correctly applied the principles set out in the leading case of Park Cakes Ltd. v Shumba [2013] IRLR 800. Contrary to the Claimants’ argument, the Tribunal’s reasons did not indicate that it had misapplied those principles. The weight to be attached to particular factors was a matter for the Tribunal (absent perversity). In the light of the available evidence, the Tribunal’s factual findings and its assessment of the weight to be attached to particular facts was not perverse. The Respondent in this case and the Respondent in the Shumba case had at one time been part of the same group of companies. However, the Tribunal was not bound by the factual findings in Shumba, as opposed to the legal principles. The Tribunal did not err by failing to have adequate regard to the facts and evidence presented in that case.
[2021] UKEAT 2020-000068
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.668146
