A Staff handbook catch-all clause allowing Asda to force new terms & conditions on its workforce is upheld by the EATBateman & Ors v. Asda Stores Ltd [2010] UKEAT 0221_09_1102 | |||
www.workrep.co.uk | |||
Helping You About Links Contact Site Info HOME | |||
16/02/2010
In Bateman v Asda Stores Silber J of the EAT has given employers a wide ranging contractual right to change terms and conditions of employment according to their 'business needs'. Employees of Asda brought employment tribunal claims for unauthorised deductions from their wages (contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996) when Asda introduced a company wide pay structure. The ET ruled against the Asda workers. Judge Silber upheld the ET decision in deciding that Asda in making unilateral changes to its contractual terms, including rates of pay and hours of work did not need its employees consent in order to implement the new pay structure. Employers have thus been given the right to change employee's terms and conditions (contractual and non-contractual) where there exists an all-encompassing clause in the staff handbook. The judge commented that this decision, based on the decision in Wandsworth London Borough Council v D'Silva [1998] IRLR 193 [31] should be properly implemented in accordance with the implied duty to maintain trust and confidence. Protected by a general clause in the staff handbook an employer is thus empowered to amend non-contractual policies in addition to unilaterally changing the terms of the contract. |
|||
The transcript of this case follows:-
Bateman & Ors v. Asda Stores Ltd [2010] UKEAT 0221_09_1102 | |||
| 2010 A worker can not claim constructive dismissal if he is in breach of the duty of trust and confidence - Aberdeen City Council v McNeill [2009] UKEAT 0037_08_1011 BA dress code forbidding the open display of faith symbols was not discriminatory - Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80 When deciding whether to allow an amendment the lateness of the application is only one factor to be taken into account by the employment judge - Baker v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2010] UKEAT 0201_09_0502 National courts should should strike down discriminatory legislation - Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG [2010] ECJCase C-555/07 Judges restrict employers' use of the illegality defence against employee unfair dismissal claims - SAN LING CHINESE MEDICINE CENTRE v LIAN WEI JI - [2010] EAT UKEAT/0370/09/ZT There is a right to legal representation at a disciplinary which might result in the loss of the right to practise a profession - G, R (on the application of) v X School & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1 Cabin crew spending 5% of their time in the UK were considered to have worked partly at an establishment in Great Britain. - BA v Mak EAT [2010] UKEAT/0055/09/SM The 'genuine occupational requirement' rule may apply to a maximum age for employment - Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main [2010] Case C-229/08 ECJ Different dress codes do not necessarily amount to sex discrimination - Dansie v. The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis [2009] UKEAT Certain conditions must exist for the obligation to carry out a risk assessment for a pregnant worker to arise - ONeill v. Buckinghamshire County Council [2010] UKEAT 2009 An employment tribunal may decide if a compromise decision is unenforcable - Industrious Ltd v Horizon Recruitment Ltd & Anor [2009] UKEAT Registrar claiming right to refuse to officiate at civil weddings loses religious discrimination case - Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 A philosophical belief based on science is protected by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 - Grainger Plc v Nicholson [2009] UKEAT/0219/09/ZT Christian counsellor who would not help same sex couples was not discriminated against - McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2009] UKEAT 0106_09_3011 Under TUPE the obligation to inform always applies, even when no measures are contemplated relating to the transfer - Cable Realisations Ltd v GMB Northern [2009] UKEAT The Court of Appeal rules on Harassment and 'Oppressive and Unacceptable' behaviour Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1288 For s4A(3) of the DDA to apply the employer must have known (or ought to have known) that the employee was disabled and that the disability would affect him in the manner described in section 4A(1) - DWP v Alam [2009] UKEAT 0242_09_0911 A discrimination case may not proceed on the mere possibility that evidence might emerge during cross examination - ABN Amro Management Services v Hogben [2009] UKEAT 0266_09_0111 In cases of discriminatory dismissal tribunals may reduce compensation if the worker would in any event have been dismissed - Chagger v Abbey National Plc & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 |
|||
| |
|||
|
| |||