Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawEmployment contracts

Case of the month: Malone & others v British Airways plc, Court of Appeal

by Personnel Today 29 Apr 2010
by Personnel Today 29 Apr 2010

Following months of talks with its unions to achieve cost savings, in October 2009, British Airways (BA) notified cabin crew of its intention to change the crew complement (levels of cabin crew) on flights, including the removal of one position from all BA Worldwide fleet flights from Heathrow.


The change prompted concerns among the cabin crew community about the impact on service standards and the increased levels of work required by reduced crew numbers.


Three staff brought claims against BA on their own behalf and on behalf of other members of cabin crew, alleging that in making these changes, BA had breached their employment contracts.


Crew complements


Provisions on crew complements are contained in various collective agreements between BA and the unions. There are some specific provisions, for example, providing for a complement of 15 crew on a Boeing 747 flight, and a complement of eight crew on a night-time two-class 767 flight. All of the collectively agreed provisions for crew complement numbers exceed the legal minimum required to operate an aircraft by the relevant regulator (in this case, the Federal Aviation Authority).


Notwithstanding that, the claimants argued that the crew complement provisions were incorporated into their individual contracts of employment, and that in reducing crew numbers without the consent of the cabin crew, BA had committed a breach of contract.


Injunction


The claimants sought an injunction against BA preventing the continued breach of contract and damages to compensate them for the period during which BA had been in breach, in the form of compensation for each understaffed flight taken.


The High Court decided in favour of BA and confirmed that BA had not breached cabin crew contracts of employment by imposing these changes. The High Court decided that:




  • At no point did the parties to the collective agreements express an intention that the provisions regarding crew complement should be legally binding between BA and the unions or as between BA and each employee by incorporation into individual employment contracts; and


  • The terms of the collective agreement were not “apt for incorporation” into each individual employment contract. The provisions were part of a collective agreement entered into to cover the general planning and deployment of 11,500 employees, but the agreement “is not the stuff of 11,500 individual contracts”.

Reasonable changes


BA also contended that some of the employment contracts contained a clause allowing them to make reasonable changes to any terms of employment from time to time and, therefore, even if the terms of the collective agreement had been incorporated into individual contracts, BA would have been able to vary the terms under that clause.


The High Court said that, had it been asked to make a decision on this point, in view of BA’s prevailing financial circumstances, it would have decided that BA could have relied on the variation clause to reduce the crew complement numbers. But in order to be effective, such a clause must be ‘clear in its terms’ and aim to produce a reasonable result if invoked.


Key points


When considering whether collectively agreed terms are incorporated into individual employment contracts, the tribunal will take account of:




  • The intentions of the parties to the collective agreement


  • Whether the terms of the collective agreement are apt for incorporation. Generally, it will be difficult to convince the tribunal that the terms of a collective agreement are incorporated where they relate to overarching issues about the management of all employees. However, collectively agreed terms relating to individual rights – such as hours of work or periods of notice – are likely to be apt for incorporation.

Employers may be able to rely on contractual variation clauses to make unilateral changes to some contractual terms where the clause is clear and it is reasonable to make the changes in the particular context.


Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The High Court held that even if the terms of the collective agreement had been incorporated into the employment contracts, an injunction would not have been an appropriate remedy. The award of an injunction would have imposed an exceptional burden on BA and perhaps have jeopardised its financial recovery.


What you should do




  • Be clear on which collectively agreed terms are incorporated into individual contracts of employment and which are not.


  • Consider incorporating into every employment contract a clause reserving the right to make reasonable changes from time to time.

Personnel Today

previous post
RAF awarded for encouraging school girls to consider engineering careers
next post
PearceMayfield is number one in change management

You may also like

Top 10 HR questions May 2025: Failure to...

2 Jun 2025

House of Lords to resume scrutiny of Employment...

30 May 2025

Indefinite leave to remain proposal could place workers...

30 May 2025

Black workers face greatest risk from workplace surveillance

30 May 2025

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

23 May 2025

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

  • Preparing for a new era of workforce planning (webinar) WEBINAR | Employers now face...Read more
  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+