Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
Ackinclose v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council
[2005] IRLR 79, [2004] All ER (D) 397 (Oct)
Court: EAT
Judgment Date: 28/10/2004
EMPLOYMENT - CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT - TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT - COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT - APPLICANTS COMPLAINING OF UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES - CONSTRUCTION OF APPLICANTS' CONTRACTS
The applicants consisted of a group of staff who were all formerly employed in the school meals services of the local authority. As a result of a tendering exercise their employment was transferred to a company in the private sector (CVS) in 1995 and then transferred back to the authority on 1 January 2000. When staff transferred in 1995 their terms and conditions were governed by a national agreement, namely the National Joint Council Terms and Conditions for Manual Employees (the white book). In 1997 a significant change occurred in the national bargaining arrangements in local government, in that manual and white-collar workers were combined in a single status agreement for local authority employees (the green book). The green book replaced the white book, which had dealt with manual workers, and the purple book, which had covered other staff. Part of the new arrangements were to reduce the working time week for full-time staff from 39 to 37 hours, which automatically led to an increase of 5.4% in the standard hourly rate, effective from 1 April 1999. CVS did not implement that change, but on the applicants' transfer back to the authority, the change was given effect. The applicants brought proceedings in the employment tribunal claiming unlawful deduction from their wages. They contended that they should have been paid the increased hourly rate in the period from 1 April 1999 to 31 December 1999. The tribunal upheld the claims and the authority appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal set aside the tribunal's decision and remitted the case for a re-hearing ([2002] All ER (D) 265 (May)). The tribunal concluded that their original decision was wrong and that the applicants' claims were not well founded. The applicants appealed. The issue arose whether the terms of the applicants' contracts with the authority, as at the date of transfer to CVS, allowed for their pay to be governed not only by the terms of the white book but by the terms of any successive collective agreement which might subsequently be adopted by the successor body to the NJC Manual Workers.
Held - The appeal would be dismissed.The contracts of employment were clear. They only made reference to the NJC Manual Workers as a negotiating body, and only made reference to their handbook, the white book, as the relevant collective bargain. Without any further reference or incorporation, no successor body or successor agreement could be held to be part of the contracts of employment.