In Jones v F Sirl & Son (Furnishers) Ltd  IRLR 493 EAT, the EAT held that in deciding whether an employee left employment in consequence of a fundamental breach of contract by the employer, the industrial tribunal must determine whether the repudiatory breach was "the effective cause" of the resignation. It does not have to be the sole cause.
In (1) Wilson and others v St Helens Borough Council (2) Meade and another v British Fuels Ltd, the Court of Appeal considers the position under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations where employees' contracts of employment are terminated on a relevant transfer and they accept employment with the transferee on less favourable terms and conditions.
An employer was contractually entitled to make changes to an incentive bonus scheme without the consent of employees individually or their trade union representatives, holds the EAT in Airlie and others v City of Edinburgh District Council.
In Mennell v Newell & Wright (Transport Contractors) Ltd, the EAT holds that an employee's dismissal for refusing to give his written consent to a new contract, which would allow the employer to make deductions from wages in order to recover training costs, could potentially amount to an automatically unfair dismissal on grounds of assertion of a statutory right.
The unilateral imposition of a continuous rolling shift pattern in place of the traditional shifts previously worked by employees in accordance with their contracts amounted to an express dismissal of those employees, who reserved their right to complain of unfair dismissal even though they worked under the new system, holds the EAT in Alcan Extrusions v Yates and others.
In Aparau v Iceland Frozen Foods plc the EAT overturns an industrial tribunal's decision that there was an express or implied term in an employee's contract of employment entitling the employer to move her, against her will, from one branch of its food stores to another.
In Wilson and others v St Helens Borough Council, the EAT holds that the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations prohibit even a consensual variation in the terms and conditions of employment of employees transferred where the transfer of the undertaking is the reason for the variation
An employee who agreed to relocate but later decided not to move was not dismissed by reason of redundancy, but rather because of his intention not to comply with the relocation clause in his contract, holds the EAT in Richardson and another v Applied Imaging International Ltd.
An employer had no right to withdraw unilaterally its employees' contractual entitlement to enhanced redundancy payments, holds the High Court in Lee and others v GEC Plessey Telecommunications.
A unilateral increase in hours of work without consultation constituted a breach of contract entitling employees to resign and claim constructive dismissal, the EAT holds in Humphreys & Glasgow Ltd v Broom and Holt*.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to varying employment contracts.