In Abrahall and others v Nottingham City Council, a few weeks after putting a single status scheme into effect the Council proposed freezing incremental pay progression for two years. The unions, who negotiated pay via a collective agreement, objected, but the freeze was imposed nonetheless. The Court of Appeal found that the pay freeze amounted to a breach of contract, but did the fact that the employees themselves continued to work for the Council after the breach without protest mean that they had accepted the breach and affirmed the new contract? The Court ruled that even though the employees remained silent, this did not necessarily mean that they had accepted the breach. Here, the pay freeze was wholly disadvantageous to the employees, the freeze was not something on which their agreement was required as pay was negotiated collectively with the unions and the unions protested strenuously up to and beyond the date of the freeze. In these circumstances, the employees could claim for arrears of pay equivalent to what they would have earned if pay progression had been operated.

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.