The demotion of a helicopter pilot from captain to co-pilot status was not a fundamental breach of contract, and the industrial tribunal had been right to reject the employee's complaint of unfair constructive dismissal, holds the EAT in Vaid v Brintel Helicopters Ltd (t/a British International Helicopters).
In Re BCCI SA the High Court rejects the claims of dismissed senior employees of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International to damages for the loss they had suffered as a result of the stigma attached to having worked for the bank.
There is no general contractual obligation on an employer to act reasonably or fairly, holds the High Court in McClory & others v The Post Office. In relation to an express power to suspend an employee, however, there is an implied term that an employer will not exercise that right on unreasonable grounds.
In the absence of any specific express or implied contractual term giving employees a "right to smoke", an employer is at liberty to introduce a smoking ban in its workplace by amending its working rules, holds the EAT in Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board.
In some circumstances, an employer is under an implied obligation to notify its employees of any rights which they have under their contracts of employment which are dependent upon them taking some sort of action, rules the House of Lords in Scally and others v Southern Health and Social Services Board and others.
The EAT emphasises in White v Reflecting Roadstuds Ltd that a restriction on an employer's powers under a flexibility clause should be implied only if it is necessary to make the contract workable, not merely because it would be reasonable to imply such a term.
An employer's right to require overtime from an employee who is under a contractual obligation to be "on call" for a specified number of hours in excess of his basic working week, is subject to the employer's implied duty to take reasonable care not to injure its employee's health, holds the Court of Appeal in Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority.
In Rutherford v Radio Rentals Ltd, the Court of Session holds that to give effect to an employer's contractual obligation to provide personal accident insurance for its employees, it may be necessary to imply a further term that the employer must make a payment to any employee who qualifies under the terms of the insurance policy referred to in the contract. The employer cannot discharge its obligations merely by relying on a refusal by the insurance company to honour the policy.
In United Bank Ltd v Akhtar, the EAT holds that it was necessary for certain terms to be implied into a contract of employment in order for the employee to be in a position to comply with a relocation clause.
In Mears v Safecar Security Ltd  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.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to implied contractual terms.