Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • 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.


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.

Avatar
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

One in five employers planning ‘no jab no...

19 May 2022

MP demands timeline on carer’s leave legislation

13 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: absence of employment bill leaves organisations...

10 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: Exclusivity contracts for low-paid workers to...

9 May 2022

MP seeks legal protections for employees undergoing fertility...

9 May 2022

Avoiding constructive dismissal claims (webinar)

5 May 2022

PwC staff to benefit from extended summer hours...

5 May 2022

A dark day for workers’ rights – why...

29 Apr 2022

P&O Ferries told to return £11m furlough money...

28 Apr 2022

Modern slavery: 10% of companies fail to publish...

26 Apr 2022
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...Read more
  • Why now is the time to plug the unhealthy gap PROMOTED | We’ve all heard the term ‘health is wealth’...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 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+