The Case

Where an employer purported unilaterally to change the terms of a contract which would not immediately impinge on an employee at all, and changes in redundancy terms would not impinge until the employee was in fact made redundant, then the fact that the employee continued to work, knowing that the employer was asserting that a change had been effected, would not mean that the employee could be taken to have accepted the variation. In the instant case, the claimant's claim for an enhanced redundancy payment against the defendant employer was allowed, where there was no doubt that read together, the clauses of the defendant's 'Enhanced Redundancy Policy' (the policy) were apt to be contractual terms, and had formed part of the claimant's contract with the defendant.