Introduction

The case London Borough Of Wandsworth v. D'Silva & Anor ([1997] UKEAT 470_96_1703) addressed the enforceability of a revised staff sickness code within employment contracts. The dispute arose when the London Borough of Wandsworth Council unilaterally amended its 1988 Sickness Code in 1995, introducing less favorable terms for employees regarding sickness absence and related procedures. Employees Dion D'Silva and Francis Lawn contested these changes, arguing that the amendments infringed upon their contractual rights.

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the Industrial Tribunal's decision in favor of the employees. The Tribunal had determined that specific provisions of the 1988 Sickness Code were indeed part of the employees' contractual terms and that the Council lacked the unilateral authority to alter these terms without consent. Consequently, the Council's appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the contractual integrity of established employment terms and conditions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced Alexander v. Standard Telephone & Cables Ltd [1991] IRLR 286, where the Court of Session scrutinized the incorporation of collective agreements into individual contracts. Additionally, Imperial Group Pension Trust Ltd v Imperial Tobacco Ltd and Others [1991] ICR 524 was cited, highlighting that pension benefits form part of the contractual consideration. These precedents underscored the necessity for clear contractual terms and the limitations on unilateral alterations by employers.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal question was whether sections of the 1988 Sickness Code constituted enforceable contractual terms. The EAT evaluated the intention of the parties, the language of the code, and the contractual provisions outlined in the employees' contracts. Despite arguments that the Code was merely a policy document, the Tribunal found that specific clauses within the Code were intended to have contractual effect. Furthermore, the existence of a unilateral variation clause in the contracts did not permit the Council to alter core contractual terms without mutual consent. The Tribunal emphasized the protection offered to employees regarding fundamental employment terms.

Impact

This judgment solidifies the principle that employment contracts, especially those incorporating collective agreements or established codes, cannot be unilaterally modified by employers in ways that disadvantage employees. It underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and the necessity for employers to engage in proper consultation before making significant changes to employment conditions. Future cases in employment law will refer to this decision when addressing the enforceability of policy documents and the limits of employer discretion in altering employment terms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Employment Rights Act 1996: A key piece of UK legislation that outlines various employment rights, including the requirement for employers to provide written statements of employment particulars.
• Contractual Terms: Specific agreements between employer and employee that outline rights and obligations. In this case, parts of the Sickness Code were deemed contractual terms.
• Unilateral Variation: The ability of one party (employer) to change the terms of a contract without the consent of the other party (employee). The Tribunal found that this power could not override established contractual terms.
• Industrial Tribunal: A judicial body that hears disputes between employers and employees, particularly those related to employment rights and conditions.
• Affirmative Declaration: A formal statement by the Tribunal declaring whether certain provisions are part of the contractual terms.

Conclusion

The London Borough Of Wandsworth v. D'Silva & Anor case serves as a pivotal reference in employment law regarding the enforceability of employment codes and the limitations on employers' abilities to alter contractual terms unilaterally. By affirming that specific contractual terms cannot be modified without mutual agreement, the judgment reinforces employee protections and emphasizes the necessity for clear, consensual modifications to employment contracts. This decision has far-reaching implications for both employers and employees, ensuring that fundamental employment conditions are upheld unless properly renegotiated.