header-logo header-logo

A unilateral right?

18 March 2010 / Sam Burnett
Issue: 7409 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Bateman highlights the broad rights of employers to alter terms & conditions unilaterally, says Sam Burnett

It is frequently the case that an employee will be issued with a relatively short statement of terms and conditions of employment, but also provided with a much more voluminous staff handbook. The contents of that handbook will often be very mixed:
• some of it will be very specific, concrete terms on subjects like entitlement to annual leave, parental leave, or sick pay
• some of it may consist of much vaguer material, such as broad policy documents, or even aspirational statements of corporate aims and goals

A question that often arises in this context is whether or not a particular part of the handbook is contractually enforceable. If the employer does wish the handbook (or sections of it) to have contractual force, it is advisable to have a term in the contract of employment which refers to the handbook, and expressly states which parts form part of the contract (Peninsula v Sweeney [2004] IRLR 49).

An employer has the right

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll