The government tried to impose a new attendance management procedure at seven government departments and agencies. The new procedure contained much more punitive and standardised trigger points for absence review meetings, with intervention after just five working days’ absence, or three absences in any 12-month period. Falling foul of the new procedure would have disciplinary consequences. The unions tried to negotiate a sensible compromise, but negotiations failed and the government responded by attempting to impose the changes unilaterally. The unions brought a high court claim for breach of contract. 


The action was successful. The Court ruled that the parts of the procedure that regulated trigger points for intervention were incorporated into individual employment contracts and could not be changed without agreement. Whether or not an absence management procedure is contractual will depend on the facts of each case, said the judge. Where, as in this example, breaching the procedure will have disciplinary consequences, such as a warning or dismissal, it is more likely to be contractual.


The Court granted a declaration that the terms of employees’ contracts remained unaltered despite the attempt to impose the new procedure without agreement. The attempted variation was ineffective, ruled the Court, and any future attempt to impose the new procedure without consent would be a breach of contract. 


Sparks and others v Department for Transport [2015] EWCH 181 (QB)


www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/181.html