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+

BonusesEmployment lawEmployment contractsPay & benefitsTUPE

Discretionary bonuses: Small and others v Boots – case of the week

by Bob Cordran 18 Feb 2009
by Bob Cordran 18 Feb 2009

Discretionary bonuses should be paid by Boots

Small and others v (1) Boots Company plc (2) Boots UK Ltd

FACTS Mr C Small and other warehousemen were employed by Boots in two warehouses near Nottingham. The claimants employed in one warehouse transferred to Unipart in August 2003 and those employed in the other transferred in April 2004. Both transfers were covered by TUPE 1981. In April 2007, the warehouse undertakings were transferred back to Boots, under TUPE 2006.

Before the transfers from Boots to Unipart, the claimants had received performance-related bonuses. However, while employed by Unipart, they received no bonuses for 2005, 2006 and 2007. The warehousemen who continued to be employed by Boots did receive bonuses.

Small and the other claimants brought an employment tribunal claim for unlawful deductions from wages, on the basis that they had not been paid the bonuses to which they were contractually entitled. The tribunal held that the claimants did not have a contractual entitlement to the bonuses, whether during their employment with Boots, on their transfer to Unipart, or on their re-engagement by Boots. The basis of the decision was that much of the relevant documentation was couched in the language of discretion rather than obligation, which meant the bonus scheme did not have contractual effect.

The claimants appealed.

DECISION The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the appeal, remitting the case to a different tribunal to determine whether the bonus scheme had contractual effect. In particular, the EAT held that labelling a bonus scheme as discretionary does not of itself mean that it does not have contractual effect.

In practice, the word discretionary in the context of bonus schemes can relate to a number of factors, including the decision to pay the bonus, how to calculate it or the amount.

It also found that the tribunal should have taken account of all the relevant circumstances, including Boots’ invariable practice of making bonus payments over many years, in deciding whether the discretion was to be construed as having contractual effect.

Further, in line with existing case law, the tribunal should have considered whether, in exercising its discretion, and not paying bonuses, Boots had acted rationally and in good faith.

IMPLICATIONS This case serves as a useful reminder to employers that simply describing a bonus scheme as discretionary does not give the employer carte blanche to pay a nil (or unexpectedly small) bonus.

Bonus schemes often contain discretion elements while being contractually enforceable. In such circumstances, the employer must exercise any discretion rationally and in good faith. This need not mean a bonus must be paid, but the decision must be considered carefully to avoid a successful challenge.

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.

It is more important than ever to ensure that bonus terms are well drafted and employers should take care to ensure that any bonus wording strikes the right balance between giving them the flexibility they require, and providing an appropriate incentive or reward to the employee.

Bob Cordran, partner, Thomas Eggar

Bob Cordran

previous post
Staff incentives plan at Cisco aims to boost green credentials
next post
Recession advice guide launched by Acas and CIPD

You may also like

Public sector workers gain pay rises of up...

22 May 2025

HSBC employees warned of office attendance link to...

22 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

Legislation could block bonuses at Thames Water

16 May 2025

Next to improve wage-setting transparency after shareholder pressure

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

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

Zero-hours workers’ rights to be extended from beyond...

8 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...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+