Contracts of employment
In Rigby v Ferodo Ltd the House of Lords confirms that employees whose wages are reduced without their consent are entitled to claim the full amount of their continuing loss, and are not limited to a claim for the loss suffered during their notice period.
In Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Smyth the High Court in Northern Ireland holds that a restrictive covenant which was signed by an employee in the course of employment was binding in law. The court further holds that the confidentiality clause should not be regarded as void for being In restraint of trade even though the restriction was world-wide and was to last for one year alter the employment ended.
Guided by ordinary contractual principles, the Northern Ireland High Court in Robert McDowell Gill and ors v Cape Contractors Ltd rules that the plaintiffs, who had given up secure employment to work for a new employer, were entitled to compensation when the new employer was subsequently unable to take them on. The court found that the employer's promise gave rise to a collateral contract between the parties which was enforceable by the plaintiffs.
In Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler and others the Court of Appeal upholds the High Court's ruling that, in the absence of a restrictive covenant, a company's former employees were free to make use of their knowledge of that company's customers and pricing structure while working for a competitor, thereby enabling them to solicit trade from their former employer's customers.
The introduction of new technology raises issues of working practices and contractual rights. In Cresswell and others v Board of Inland Revenue, the High Court holds that the computerisation of PAYE did not change the contracts of Inland Revenue staff.
In Strathclyde Regional Council v Neil [1984] IRLR 11 CS, the Sheriff Court held that a contractual provision for repayment by the employee of the costs incurred is not a penalty and can be enforced, provided the amount relates to the loss suffered by the employer.
One of the grounds on which an interval between two contracts of employment does not break continuity is that the employee is absent from work due to a temporary cessation of work. In a decision that will benefit many teachers and temporary workers, the House of Lords holds in Ford v Warwickshire County Council that it is not relevant that the interval was anticipated and lies between two fixed term contracts. The test in all cases is whether the gap is short In relation to the duration of the two contracts.
In Mears v Safecar Security Ltd [1982] IRLR 183 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, in determining an implied term, regard should be had to all the circumstances, including the way the contract had been operated in the past.
In Evans v Elemeta Holdings Ltd [1982] IRLR 143 EAT, the EAT emphasises that whether it is reasonable to dismiss an employee for refusing to accept a change in contractual terms depends upon whether it was reasonable for the employee to decline the terms. If it was reasonable for the employee to decline those terms, then it is unreasonable for the employer to dismiss the employee for such refusal.
In Jones v Associated Tunnelling Co Ltd [1981] IRLR 477 EAT, the EAT held that it would be unreasonable for an employee to be deemed by his or her silence to have accepted a change to his or her working conditions when the change had no immediate effect.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to contracts of employment.