![]() The EAT held that the clause in the Colleague Handbook clearly permitted Asda to unilaterally change the content of the Handbook, including the contractual matters contained in the Handbook, such as pay and hours of work, where, as in the present case, the change reflected the needs of the business. The handbook's contents included terms relating to pay and other conditions of employment. "reserved the right to review, revise, amend or replace the contents of this handbook, and introduce new policies from time to time reflecting the changing needs of the business…." Asda imposed the change on the minority who did not give their consent.Ī number of these employees brought claims of unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of contract and unfair dismissal.Īsda defended its decision to impose the change without obtaining the claimants' consent by relying on a clause in its Colleague Handbook, which was incorporated in to the claimants' contracts of employment. It carried out a consultation process with the affected employees, the majority of whom agreed to it. ![]() ![]() ![]() In a case that should be treated with some caution, Bateman and others v Asda Stores Ltd, the EAT held that Asda was entitled to rely on a general contractual right in a staff handbook to vary terms and conditions to impose changes to its employees' pay and work structure.Īsda wished to amend the pay and work structure of a small proportion of its employees to harmonise it with that adopted for the vast majority. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |