Contracts of employment: Implied terms depend on necessity not reasonableness
This report relates to 1 case(s)
White v Reflecting Roadstuds Ltd  IRLR 331 EAT (0 other reports)
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. The EAT also confirms that an employer who relies on a flexibility clause to transfer an employee to alternative work is not acting in breach of contract merely because the employee loses pay as a result.