| Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Keywords | |
| Employment contract, smoking | |
Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1992] IRLR 469 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that a variation of company workplace customs, which are incorporated into individual contracts of employment can take place after a proper consultation without breaching employees' contracts.
Ms Dryden was a nursing auxiliary in a Glasgow hospital. She smoked around 30 cigarettes a day. After consultations, which she did not contribute to, smoking was banned. She claimed constructive dismissal on the basis that the workplace custom being unilaterally changed breached her employment contract.
Lord Coulsfield in the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a unilateral variation on the workplace rules did not amount to a breach of any contract term. The consultation process was influential in making the rule change legitimate. He said the following.
The appellant's contract of employment is a standard form document, which does not contain any express clause relevant to the present issue. The contract does contain reference to Whitley Council Agreements as determining levels of wages and other matters, but again there does not appear to have been any relevant decision or agreement to be found in that source. The Industrial Tribunal have found that it is the practice in the Health Service for conditions of employment and wages to be discussed with trade unions and professional organisations, the agreements being incorporated in the contracts of employment of the employees. They have also found that, at the Health Board level, proposed policies, changes in operational practices, and working rules, are negotiated with trade unions by means of regular meetings of a joint consultation committee and a joint trade union committee. It does not appear that there was any relevant agreement so negotiated.
The principal submissions on behalf of the appellant, both before the Industrial Tribunal and before us, were based on the obligation of the employer not to prevent the employee from performing her part of the contract and not to act so as to destroy the trust and confidence between employer and employee. Before turning to these contentions, however, we should first deal with the question whether the contract contained any specific implied term related to smoking, a matter in respect of which we were left in some uncertainty about the appellant's position. It is, we think, obvious that if there was a term in the appellant's contract of employment to the effect that she would be entitled to have access to facilities for smoking during working hours, the respondents would not be entitled to vary that term unilaterally, and it is possible that an attempt to do so might be held to amount to a sufficient breach of contract to entitle the employee to resign. In his submissions to us, Mr Miller, who appeared for the appellant, referred to Watson v Cooke, Webb and Holton COIT 13852/84, in which an Industrial Tribunal held that an employer who introduced a ban on smoking committed a breach of contract in that he introduced, or sought to introduce, a wholly new contractual term. He also referred to another Industrial Tribunal decision, Rogers v Wicks & Wilson Ltd COIT 22890/87, in which the Tribunal preferred to treat a ban on smoking as a matter of rules of the place of work rather than as a term of the contract. Mr Miller submitted to us that it would be safer to approach the problem by considering the employer's conduct, rather than by considering whether there was an implied term relating to smoking. At another point in his submissions, however, he suggested that there was an implied term that smoking would be permitted, because custom and practice permitted it, and that the cancellation of that permission was repudiatory. We were therefore left in some doubt whether or not it was suggested that there was a specific term relating to a “right to smoke” in the appellant's contract. The Industrial Tribunal in this case may have suffered from the same difficulty. They record that there was reference to the two Industrial Tribunal cases cited above, that it was submitted that it was not useful to consider whether the appellant had an implied contractual right to smoke at work, and that there was no submission that the right to smoke at work was an essential term of the contract. They also record that, in her evidence, the appellant agreed that the limited 'no smoking' ban was a matter of rules. They do, however, then go on to consider whether there was an implied term, to refer to the well-known authorities which define the circumstances in which a term can be held to be implied, and to hold that smoking is in a different category from, and falls far short of, the kind of custom which has been held to be implied in a contract of employment. They also hold that such a term could not be said to be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract, to give effect to the combined intention of the parties or to complete their contractual arrangements.
The question whether an employer is entitled to prohibit or restrict smoking in the workplace is one which is likely to arise in a number of different contexts, and it is tempting to try to arrive at some general answer to the question whether there may be an implied contractual term which confers a “right to smoke” on the employee. We think, however, that that temptation should be resisted. The question whether a term should be implied in a particular contract is one dependent on the particular facts and circumstances, and, while we think that there is much force in the reasoning of the Industrial Tribunal, it seems to us that they went further than is necessary for the decision of this case. It is sufficient, in our opinion, to say that the findings of fact and submissions before us form an entirely inadequate basis for holding that there was any implied contract term to the effect that smoking would, to some extent or in some way, continue to be permitted, either generally or in the particular case of the appellant. Neither before us, nor, it appears, before the Industrial Tribunal, was there any real attempt to present an argument for the existence of an implied term related to the well-established tests which have to be applied in order to determine whether or not such a term should be held to form part of a contract, nor was there any real attempt to lead evidence to establish the facts necessary to found such an argument.
United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum charter of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.
In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.
Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason.
The Employment Relations Act 1999 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. It made significant amendments in UK labour law to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Nethermere Ltd v Gardiner And Another [1984] ICR 612 is a UK labour law case in the Court of Appeal in the field of home work and vulnerable workers. Many labour and employment rights, such as unfair dismissal, in Britain depend on one's status as an "employee" rather than being "self-employed", or some other "worker". This case stands for the proposition that where "mutuality of obligation" between employers and casual or temporary workers exists to offer work and accept it, the court will find that the applicant has a "contract of employment" and is therefore an employee.
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] 1 AC 294 is an English contract law case, relevant for pensions and UK labour law, concerning implied terms.
Johnson v Unisys Limited [2001] UKHL 13 is a leading UK labour law case on the measure of damages for unfair dismissal and the nature of the contract of employment.
Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd (2013) C-426/11 is an EU law and UK labour law case concerning whether an employer may agree to incorporate a collective agreement into an individual contract, and if that agreement has a provision for automatic updating of some terms, whether that transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006. The UK Supreme Court referred to the European Court of Justice the question whether national courts could give a more favourable interpretation to legislation than had been given by German courts.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals. It confirmed the view, also taken by the Court of Appeal, that the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account when deciding whether a person counts as an employee, to get employment rights. As Lord Clarke said,
the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem.
Transco plc v O'Brien[2002] EWCA Civ 379 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment.
South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.
Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.
Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38 is a case from Bermuda law, advised upon by the Privy Council, that is relevant for UK labour law and UK company law concerning the dismissal of a director.
The law for workplace bullying is given below for each country in detail. Further European countries with concrete antibullying legislation are Belgium, France, and The Netherlands.
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence[2011] UKSC 58 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.
E Green & Sons (Castings) Ltd v ASTMS [1984] IRLR 135 (EAT) is a UK labour law case, concerning the information and consultation in the European Union.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker is a leading Australian judgment of the High Court which unanimously and firmly rejected the proposition that contracts of employment in Australia should contain an implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers.
Wandsworth LBC v D’Silva [1998] IRLR 193 is a UK labour law case, concerning mutual trust and confidence and the limit of power of employers to vary work conditions.