header-logo header-logo

A unilateral right?

18 March 2010 / Sam Burnett
Issue: 7409 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Bateman highlights the broad rights of employers to alter terms & conditions unilaterally, says Sam Burnett

It is frequently the case that an employee will be issued with a relatively short statement of terms and conditions of employment, but also provided with a much more voluminous staff handbook. The contents of that handbook will often be very mixed:
• some of it will be very specific, concrete terms on subjects like entitlement to annual leave, parental leave, or sick pay
• some of it may consist of much vaguer material, such as broad policy documents, or even aspirational statements of corporate aims and goals

A question that often arises in this context is whether or not a particular part of the handbook is contractually enforceable. If the employer does wish the handbook (or sections of it) to have contractual force, it is advisable to have a term in the contract of employment which refers to the handbook, and expressly states which parts form part of the contract (Peninsula v Sweeney [2004] IRLR 49).

An employer has the right unilaterally to alter any part of a handbook which

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll