EAT Contract of Employment : Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term – CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
REDUNDANCY – Fairness
Wrongful Dismissal
Mere delay might be neutral in determining whether an employee can be said to have acquiesced in the case of an employer’s breach of contract or in deciding whether or not an employee has accepted a change to a contractual term but this case involved more than simply a unilateral change of one term of the Claimant’s contract. The Respondent did not purport to maintain the Claimant’s former contract subject only to a unilateral variation of her notice entitlement. It departed from that former contract and introduced an entirely new package, which encompassed not just the terms and conditions but also the job description and the handbook. Some of that had impacted on the Claimant straightaway. Knowing of the change in question to her notice period (a term which could have an immediate impact in terms of job security), she continued to work to the new contract for some nine years without objection.
In considering that time period, the Employment Tribunal was entitled to have regard to the Claimant’s position. She herself had held a trade union role. She was someone who could be expected to have regard to the detail of the terms and conditions and to raise queries if they arose.
Properly understood, the wrongful dismissal appeal was one of perversity. It did not meet the high test laid down so as to make good that challenge.
Unfair Dismissal
The sole point permitted to proceed to Full Hearing was concerned with the involvement of two particular individuals on a selection panel (for a potential alternative position in a redundancy exercise), against whom the Claimant had raised grievances.
The question of the composition of the panel was raised as an arguable point before the Employment Tribunal, which carefully scrutinised the evidence on that question. It was satisfied that the Claimant’s concerns were unfounded: the composition of the selection panel was neither unreasonable, nor did it impact in any way on the fairness of the selection process. On those findings of fact, there was no proper point raised by this part of the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Eady QC HHJ
[2014] UKEAT 0120 – 14 – 0610
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539300