(2) Express variation clausesWhat is the legal status of a clause in the contract which purports to give the employer a power to vary some, or all, of the terms unilaterally? On the one hand, such a clause contradicts the usual requirement that a variation needs consent by the employee, but on the other hand, the clause itself constitutes an express term which the employee has accepted. The case law here is not extensive. It tends to suggest that if the variation clause (or, in an alternative formulation, a clause declaring that the matter in question is non-contractual and so remains within managerial prerogative) is fairly precise and restricted (eg to one particular matter) and is not perceived by the court or tribunal to be oppressive, then it may well be valid and enforceable. Thus, in Cadoux v Central Regional Council [1986] IRLR 131, Ct of Sess the court upheld a clause stating that the rules of a non-contributory life assurance scheme were originally made unilaterally (to the extent that the scheme could be discontinued completely by the employer without union agreement); the only undertaking that the employer was construed as having given was to consult the workforce first. This 'consultation' point (falling short of requiring contractual consent) was also seen in
What is the legal status of a clause in the contract which purports to give the employer a power to vary some, or all, of the terms unilaterally? On the one hand, such a clause contradicts the usual requirement that a variation needs consent by the employee, but on the other hand, the clause itself constitutes an express term which the employee has accepted. The case law here is not extensive. It tends to suggest that if the variation clause (or, in an alternative formulation, a clause declaring that the matter in question is non-contractual and so remains within managerial prerogative) is fairly precise and restricted (eg to one particular matter) and is not perceived by the court or tribunal to be oppressive, then it may well be valid and enforceable. Thus, in Cadoux v Central Regional Council [1986] IRLR 131, Ct of Sess the court upheld a clause stating that the rules of a non-contributory life assurance scheme were originally made unilaterally (to the extent that the scheme could be discontinued completely by the employer without union agreement); the only undertaking that the employer was construed as having given was to consult the workforce first. This 'consultation' point (falling short of requiring contractual consent) was also seen in
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
No Credit Card Required
No Downloads Necessary
0330 161 1234