ncerned an enhanced redundancy payment set out in the staff handbook in a section dealing with 'Employee Benefits and Rights' that was headed 'non-contractual'. The prIt is common practice for an employer to set out what they intend to be contractual terms in the contract of employment and the non-contractual policies and procedures in the staff handbook. The underlying reason for this is to minimise the risk of an employee claiming breach of contract where a policy or procedure has not been strictly adhered to. It also gives employers more freedom to change their policies and procedures.

A recent case in the Court of Appeal confirmed that, regardless of what 'label' an employer may apply to it, the courts will look at what the provision is really about when deciding whether it is contractual or not.

The case concerned an enhanced redundancy payment set out in the staff handbook in a section dealing with 'Employee Benefits and Rights' that was headed 'non-contractual'. The pro

in the staff handbook. The underlying reason for this is to minimise the risk of an employee claiming breach of contract where a policy or procedure has not been strictly adhered to. It also gives employers more freedom to change their policies and procedures.

A recent case in the Court of Appeal confirmed that, regardless of what 'label' an employer may apply to it, the courts will look at what the provision is really about when deciding whether it is contractual or not.

The case concerned an enhanced redundancy payment set out in the staff handbook in a section dealing with 'Employee Benefits and Rights' that was headed 'non-contractual'. The pr

ctly adhered to. It also gives employers more freedom to change their policies and procedures.

A recent case in the Court of Appeal confirmed that, regardless of what 'label' an employer may apply to it, the courts will look at what the provision is really about when deciding whether it is contractual or not.

The case concerned an enhanced redundancy payment set out in the staff handbook in a section dealing with 'Employee Benefits and Rights' that was headed 'non-contractual'. The pr

what 'label' an employer may apply to it, the courts will look at what the provision is really about when deciding whether it is contractual or not.

The case concerned an enhanced redundancy payment set out in the staff handbook in a section dealing with 'Employee Benefits and Rights' that was headed 'non-contractual'. The pr

ncerned an enhanced redundancy payment set out in the staff handbook in a section dealing with 'Employee Benefits and Rights' that was headed 'non-contractual'. The provision said:

"Those employees with 2 or more years continuous service are entitled to receive an enhanced redundancy payment from the Company, which is paid tax free to a limit of ?30,000. Details will be discussed during both collective and individual consultation."

The Court of Appeal found that although the wording did not specify how the payment was to be calculated, it did refer to an 'entitlement' and, as such was capable of being a contractual provision. The Court distinguished between those provisions that, read in their context, may be declarations of "an aspiration or policy which falls short of a contractual undertaking" and those provis