Terms and conditions templates toolkit

Employees and employers must adhere to the terms within a contract until it ends (for example, by an employer or employee giving notice or an employee being dismissed) or until the terms are changed (usually by agreement between the employee and employer).

To change a contract usually requires agreement between both parties, or reasonable notice if agreement ultimately cannot be sought.

Here are some key UK employment law considerations to keep in mind when issuing terms and conditions of employment templates:

• Timing: The terms and conditions of employment should be provided to the employee before or at the start of their employment, and any changes should be communicated in writing with sufficient notice.

• Accessibility: The terms and conditions of employment should be provided in a format that is easily accessible and understandable to the employee, such as in plain English or in a language the employee is fluent in.

• Clarity: The terms and conditions of employment should be written in clear and unambiguous language, and any legal or technical terms should be explained in simple terms.

• Compliance with legislation: Terms and conditions of employment should comply with all relevant legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and the Working Time Regulations 1998.

• Signatures: The employee should be given a copy of their terms and conditions to keep, and they should be asked to sign a copy to acknowledge that they have received and understood the document.

• Changes: Any changes to terms and conditions of employment should be communicated to the employee in writing, and the employee should be given a reasonable period of notice to consider and accept the changes.

• Dispute resolution: The terms and conditions of employment should include a process for resolving disputes between the employer and employee, such as through mediation or arbitration.

Navigating Terms and conditions processes correctly is crucial.

Recent UK case law has highlighted key aspects of good Terms and conditions management. Knowing how courts have handled claims can help you assess whether your proposed actions are likely to be seen as reasonable.

Here are some notable rulings and their implications:

• Uber BV v. Aslam (2021):

Facts: Drivers for the Uber platform argued that they were workers rather than self-employed contractors and thus entitled to worker rights including minimum wage, holiday pay, and other benefits.

Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are workers, not independent contractors. The court emphasised factors such as Uber’s significant control over the drivers and the requirement for drivers to accept the terms set by Uber without negotiation.

Key takeaway: This landmark case established that the degree of control and dependency in the working relationship determines employment status and entitlements.

• Addison Lee Ltd v. Lange & Ors (2021):

Facts: Drivers for Addison Lee, a private hire and courier company, claimed they were workers and not self-employed contractors, seeking entitlements such as minimum wage and holiday pay.

Outcome: The Court of Appeal upheld the decision that Addison Lee drivers were workers, not self-employed contractors. The court looked at the level of control Addison Lee had over the drivers and the requirement for drivers to comply with company policies.

Key takeaway: This case reinforced the importance of evaluating the actual working relationship over contractual labels.

• Dewhurst v. Revisecatch Ltd t/a Ecourier (2020):

Facts: Couriers for Ecourier claimed they were workers and entitled to the protections afforded to workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996, despite being classified as self-employed.

Outcome: The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the couriers, determining that they were workers. The tribunal considered factors like the requirement to follow instructions, the lack of freedom to negotiate terms, and the control exerted by the company.

Key takeaway: This decision further solidified the precedent for evaluating the real nature of the working relationship.

• Barclays Bank plc v. Various Claimants (2020):

Facts: This case involved historical allegations of sexual assault by a doctor who conducted medical examinations for Barclays Bank. The claimants argued that Barclays should be vicariously liable for the doctor's actions.

Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that Barclays was not vicariously liable as the doctor was an independent contractor.

Key takeaway: The decision highlighted the distinction between employees and independent contractors, impacting how liability and employment terms are viewed when engaging third-party contractors.

• Harpur Trust v. Brazel (2019):

Facts: Mrs. Brazel, a music teacher working on a zero-hours contract, claimed that her holiday pay was not being calculated correctly. She argued that it should be based on her average earnings over a 12-week period, as opposed to a pro-rata basis.

Outcome: The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Mrs. Brazel, determining that her holiday pay should be calculated based on her average earnings over a 12-week reference period, not pro-rated.

Key takeaway: This case clarified the correct method for calculating holiday pay for workers on variable hours or zero-hours contracts.

• Royal Mencap Society v. Tomlinson-Blake (2021):

Facts: This case concerned whether sleep-in carers should receive the National Minimum Wage for the entire duration of their sleep-in shifts, or only for the time they are awake and actively working.

Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that sleep-in carers are only entitled to the National Minimum Wage for the periods they are awake and required to work.

Key takeaway: This decision clarified the payment requirements for sleep-in shifts and the interpretation of working time under the National Minimum Wage regulations.

• Kostal UK Ltd v. Dunkley & Ors (2019):

Facts: Kostal UK Ltd sought to bypass union negotiations by offering employees a direct pay deal. The union argued that this was an unlawful inducement to avoid collective bargaining.

Outcome: The Court of Appeal ruled that the direct offer to employees was unlawful as it was an attempt to undermine collective bargaining.

Key takeaway: This case reinforced the legal protections for collective bargaining and the obligations of employers to negotiate with recognised trade unions.

Here are some conplex but common Terms and conditions-related workplace scenarios that need careful planning and execution to resolve.

We show you the steps to take to manage the specific case, along with what you should consider doing to minimise and mitigate any repeat.

🔒 To access the answers to the following questions you will need to make a purchase.