Employers may be ill-advised to reduce to a matter of rigid written policy, enhancements paid to employees as part of redundancy packages. This can be for a number of reasons.
First, in most redundancy situations employers may wish to use the lure of enhanced redundancy package proposals as a means of enticing affected employees to enter into compromise agreements, thereby reducing the risk of any further claims. In the event any written policy is interpreted as a contractual right or even, for practical purposes, becomes an expectation of the employee, the “attraction” to employees in signing a compromise agreement is lost. They might expect payment in any event.
Secondly, no employer is exempt from fluctuations in the economy and market trends, which may well dictate the amount an employer can budget for in terms of redundancy costs.
Thirdly, there may in any particular situation be circumstances specific to any particular employee which necessitate a difference in approach in respect of any financial package offered.Clearly, these examples are not exhaustive. That said, some employers may view the reduction of enhanced redundancy package entitlements to writing as a genuine incentive, which may attract the best employees and stimulate their performance.
That employers might meet folly in reducing policy on enhanced redundancy packages to a matter of writing (even if the method of calculation is undefined) was highlighted recently in Keeley v FOSROC International Ltd [2006] IRLR 961 in a judgment of the Court of Appeal. Although not binding in Scotland, it is clear that the judgment shall be of significant persuasion in Scottish tribunals. In addition, it will be of importance to those practitioners advising clients who have English based operations.
K was employed by F under a contract of employment which incorporated, by reference, F’s staff handbook. This, in turn, included provisions regarding F’s approach to redundancy situations. In addition to general statements of the employer’s intention on how to approach redundancy situations and details of redundancy procedures, the handbook contained, under the heading “compensation”, the following provision:
“Those employees with two or more years’ continuous service are entitled to receive an enhanced redundancy payment from the company, which is paid tax free to a limit of £30,000. Details will be discussed during both collective and individual consultation.” Importantly, in the writer’s view at least, the provision made no reference as to how any enhanced redundancy payment would be calculated.
Following his dismissal by redundancy in July 2004, K claimed he was contractually entitled to receive an enhanced redundancy payment calculated on the basis of a general understanding within F’s workforce.
The matter came before the High Court who held in F’s favour and in particular that the relevant provision did not amount to a contractual right in favour of K.
K appealed to the Court of Appeal who overturned the High Court’s decision. F argued that even if, as a matter of construction, the relevant provision was “apt” for a contractual term, it was too uncertain to have that effect because of the absence from it of any formula for calculation of the payment. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding as follows:
The judgment may be of great concern to those employers who have made any reference to enhancement of redundancy packages in staff handbooks or other company documentation available to employees. This arguably amounts to a presumption that enhanced redundancy entitlements, in these circumstances, will have contractual status and, as a result, can be relied upon by employees claiming breach of contract. For those of us advising respondent clients, who encounter such claims in the aftermath of redundancy procedures born out of economic difficulties, the judgment could have radical consequences - particularly where larger scale redundancies are concerned.
In the writer’s respectful opinion, the reasoning of the Court of Appeal gives cause for some concern. Fundamentally, the court approached the matter from the perspective of enhanced redundancy packages representing “part of the remuneration package”. The court went on to state that it considered as “highly relevant” the importance of the provision to the “overall bargain” – “what [he] undertook to work for” (paras 7 and 34).
The court acknowledged that provision for redundancy is now a widely accepted feature of an employee’s remuneration package. This, in the writer’s view, gives rise to a particular difficulty with the reasoning of the court. It is respectfully submitted that (perhaps higher level management aside) it is not the norm that employees joining companies will be aware of, or even discuss, any financial package on their potential selection for redundancy. Certainly, it may in one view be surprising that parties would discuss the financials of termination packages as part of the contract of employment being agreed.
The court also drew much support from the “context” in which, it considered, the “compensation” provision was found. Significant reference was made to the fact that the broad section containing the redundancy provisions was entitled “Employee Benefits and Rights”. That said, the court also acknowledged that the particular “redundancy” section contained a “purpose” and “introduction” section which were “couched in terms of aim and intention”, directed at how F would determine “on a case by case basis, who should be made redundant”. These were acknowledged as not directed at “entitlement” to “or the manner of calculation of, compensation for redundancy once determined” (para 9).
In the writer’s respectful opinion, it may be regarded as curious that the Court of Appeal could derive such report from the remainder of the provisions in the relevant staff handbook whilst, on one view, apparently “leapfrogging” the (what one might regard as) definitive, guiding terms of the particular “redundancy” section itself.
The Court of Appeal noted that the relevant provision made no reference to any method of calculation or amount save the identification of a maximum sum which could be paid tax free. The court placed significant store, however, on the terms of F’s defence, which effectively acknowledged K’s quantification and method of calculation. The court rejected F’s argument that a “catch all” rebuttal of the claim was sufficient to overcome this hurdle.
Evidence which revealed a consistent pattern of resistance by F to acknowledging any contractual obligation to make such payments and suggested a sometimes acquiescent and ambivalent attitude to that stance by the union and individual employees, including in earlier years K, was equally unpersuasive.
The court found that the circumstances were not such that F maintained the documents concerned did not contain “the whole agreement... in relation to an enhanced redundancy payment” (para 29).
The writer respectfully questions that particular approach of the Court of Appeal. Arguably, the bedrock of F’s argument was that the provision relied upon by K lacked such “certainty” as to the mechanics and totality of the sum payable that this could not be relied upon. In the writer’s respectful opinion, another view may be that this, therefore, was indeed a case where F maintained that the “whole agreement” in relation to the enhanced payments sought was not within the documents themselves, which were pointed to by K.
The court, arguably somewhat confusingly, found that the provision, in its use of the expression “enhanced redundancy payment” identified by reference the means by which, when such payments fell to be made, they were calculable. This was demonstrated, in the court’s view, by F’s acknowledgment in its defence of the formula proposed by K (again disregarding F’s “general” denial to the claim). In the writer’s view, this might be regarded as something of a “interpretational leap”. The question arises, for example, as to what the court’s position would have been had economic trends and market conditions necessitated a change in F’s treatment of the alleged formula on that particular occasion. The court held inter alia that the fact the formula may change from time to time was not an argument against contractual effect and was, to the contrary, in favour of it (para 41).
In what appears to have been a relatively small step of interpretation for the Court of Appeal, something of a giant leap has potentially been created for larger employers. The judgment, on one view, comes perilously close to creating a presumption as to the contractual status of enhanced redundancy entitlements in company handbooks.
Current Submissions04.07.08 Getting a Get in Scotland - 2This follow-up to the article published in March 2006 explains how current Scots divorce law affects Jewish clients and how solicitors can give appropriate advice 12.06.08 No place for secrecyFuller version of the Opinion article, Journal, June 2008: critique of the system for appointment as Queen’s Counsel in Scotland 11.03.08 One Scotland, many cultures?Despite the protections of the Human Rights Act, the position of travelling people in Scotland appears to have worsened in recent years - why? 26.02.08 Bank charges and the Unfair Terms RegulationsThe significance of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations in the context of the current litigation over bank charges 21.02.08 CGT: Don't lose out on 6 April 2008Couples should consider asset transfers before then to preserve indexation relief 14.12.07 Common sense prevailsThe options open, and the issues that arise, now that the proposed planning gain supplement is not to be introduced 07.12.07 Discounting justiceAuthor contends that sentencing discounts and other developments have created an imbalance in the justice system 10.10.07 Advocacy in mediationAn overview of the mediation process and the opportunities for solicitors and clients 06.09.07 TUPE: stay your handA Court of Session ruling on a law firm redundancy marks a fundamental change in TUPE 24.07.07 EAT breaks ground with TUPE insolvency rulingRuling on when insolvency proceedings begin leaves successor employer liable 06.07.07 Confidentiality clauses - beware!The Information Commissioner's decision in the VisitScotland case requires very careful drafting of confidentiality provisions in public sector contracts if they are to work 06.07.07 The power of marks: Frankie goes after Hollys nameHow failure to address issues of ownership of the band's name stored up trouble for Frankie Goes to Hollywood 14.05.07 Court plans with little appealThe fuller version of the Opinion article in the Journal for May 2007 14.05.07 Winning waysThe fuller version of the article in the Journal for May 2007 08.02.07 Routes to qualification: the Italian pictureAn Italian lawyer with an interest in training in different jurisdictions reports on current developments in the Italian legal system 09.01.07 Contractual handcuffs: enhanced redundancy rightsThe Court of Appeal decision in Keeley v FOSROC International Ltd requires employers to exercise caution when referring to redundancy rights in staff handbooks 27.12.06 The Isle of ManAn summary of the current legal and tax regime for individuals and companies based on the island (a longer version of the briefing in the November 2006 issue) 15.11.06 Costume Wars: copyright storm over the troopersA row over "Star Wars" costumes illustrates the need to protect all intellectual property rights in written agreements 13.10.06 Survival of the fittest? A replyReply to article on selection for Diploma and traineeship places by Michael Torrance in the September 2006 Journal 13.10.06 TUPE passes the buckFar from providing clarity, the new regulations will need litigation to decide the effect of the insolvency provisions (longer version of October 2006 briefing article) 17.08.06 For supplement read tax - an updateAuthors update their previous Journal article on the proposed planning gain supplement 17.08.06 Technology and the Scottish courtsAn update on the use of technology in the Scottish courts, based on the author's experience of a recent patent case 26.07.06 A lack of trustForthcoming in August issue, put online because of its urgency, the article outlines the final form of the trust tax changes in this year's Finance Act 17.07.06 Ireland 4, Italy 0The ECJ decision in the Irish-Italian dispute in the Parmalat companies liquidation proceedings provides important guidance on jurisdiction 05.04.06 Legal science or law-lite? A responseThis reply to Professor Gretton argues that changes in Scots law teaching are a necessary response to changes in universities, the wider community and the law itself 03.04.06 Opening a binding global route for personal dataIn a significant move the Information Commissioner has allowed a company to transfer employees' personal data outwith the EU under binding internal rules 02.04.06 Mentally disordered offendersOverview of the options available to the courts when dealing with offenders who have or may have a mental disorder, following recent legislative reforms 30.03.06 Bias and mental health tribunals: a replyReply to criticisms of the new tribunals, arguing that the composition of the tribunals is not inherently unfair and only research can assess their performance 17.01.06 Legal aid in children's hearing referralsThis paper delivered at the legal aid conference, argues that the interests of justice require better remuneration for solicitors appearing in children's hearing cases 09.12.05 Holes in Scotland's corporate killing proposalsGaps in the expert working group's proposals could make them unworkable and bad for business 10.08.05 Prosecuting bigotry offencesTwo appeal decisions have exposed limitations in the statutory offences directed at racial abuse 08.07.05 Commissioner: Public Authorities must do moreInformation Commissioner's first appeal decision highlights areas for improvement 14.04.05 New identity for criminal justice bodyScottish Association for the Study of Offending launches by removing "Delinquency" from title 14.04.05 Information and Consultation RegulationsBriefing on the regulations in force from 6 April 2005, covering businesses with more than the prescribed number of employees 13.04.05 Retailers seek effective court action on crimeScottish Retail Consortium proposes more effective intervention following 3rd Retail Crime Survey 11.04.05 Appropriate dispute resolutionThis paper, given to the Four Jurisdictions Conference in Nice this year, discusses how family law can make a difference for the better by careful choice of the most suitable method of resolution 09.03.05 ASBOs and young peopleWhat to look for when acting for a young person facing an antisocial behaviour order application 21.02.05 Sell or transfer?Longer version of briefing published in February 2005 issue, page 44 08.02.05 Promoting competitiveness or competition?Discussion of EU rules on state aids with particular reference to Highlands and Islands ferries 10.11.04 Guarding the inner sanctumHow to minimise the risk of breaches of internet security 10.11.04 The Clinical Trials Directive - a summaryWhat the EU Clinical Trials Directive means for trials of medicinal products 13.10.04 Sheriff Court Rules Council consultation paperConsultation on proposals for further extension of the use of information technology in civil cases in the sheriff court (response date: 15 November 2004) 13.10.04 Ignorantia juris: it's all Greek to meSecond annual APEX lecture given by the President of the Law Society of Scotland, on the rule of law and its essential components 13.10.04 Virtual firms: transactional learning on the webHow today's Diploma students are introduced to legal transactions in a virtual environment 13.10.04 Drafting consumer contractsGuidance on drafting consumer contracts and ensuring compliance with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 |