 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Was Grattan’s Stop and Search Policy Non-Contractual?
In May 2001, Grattan plc implemented a random Stop and Search policy in their Head Office, Anchor House, in Bradford.
In June 2001, I accused Grattan plc of a breach of contract. Grattan said that they would consider my objections. A revised policy was implemented in August 2001. It didn’t address my main objections, but now contained the text
"This is a non contractual policy which the Company reserves the right to amend from time to time in order to meet the Company’s operational or business requirements and does not form part of employees’ terms and conditions of employment."
It was Grattan’s position that if the policy was not contractual, it could not be a breach of contract. [
details] If they were right it meant, among other things, that they had not acted incorrectly by failing to give proper notice of a change to our terms and conditions of employment. [details]Grattan’s random Stop and Search policy, as implemented in May 2001, contained no mention of being non-contractual, or of not forming part of our terms and conditions of employment. In fact, it actually quoted from our terms and conditions, to justify disciplinary action.
(It not only quoted but actually used quotation marks.) Also, there was a sign above some warehouse entrances, warning that refusal to be searched was a breach of contract. [details]In spite of that, Grattan stated in their Grounds of Resistance before the Tribunal that
"on 28 May 2001, following consultation with its recognised trade unions, Grattan plc introduced a non-contractual stop and search policy ("the Policy") at its Anchor House site, applicable to all employees of Grattan plc and the Respondent."
(I was not a trade union member, and so was not consulted before the policy was implemented. [
details])
In addition, Grattan’s appointed witness, Sue Wilkinson of Grattan’s HR Department, told the Tribunal that
"It was made clear throughout that stop and search would not amount to a policy with contractual status, and the Company made it very clear that no changes to terms and conditions of employment were being effected."
The Tribunal asked Ms Wilkinson what Grattan plc had done to make it clear that the policy was not contractual. She pointed out (from a copy of the policy on page 98 of the Tribunal’s document bundle) that the policy implemented in May ended with the sentence
‘The company reserves the right to amend or change the contents of this policy at any time.’
In paragraph 17 of their decision, the Tribunal stated that
"Miss Wilkinson, the Personnel Officer, told us that he
(sic) utilised that form of words when it was intended that the policy would not form part of the contract."In paragraph 18, the Tribunal wrote
"We do not see how the wording at page 98 could make this a non-contractual term. If the first policy was part of the contract then it could not be repealed as a term of the contract by the later wording. In any event, the title or description of a document is not determinate of its legal status. We find as a fact that the policy did form part of the contract of employment and as such its introduction heralded and made a change to the terms and conditions of employment."
As the EAT put it in paragraph 7 of their decision, the Tribunal
"concluded that there had been a fundamental breach of contract by reason of the unilateral imposition upon Mr Trotter of the new policy."