Overturning the EAT, the Court of Appeal has construed a contractual clause in a collective agreement, which provided that the employer would increase pay by one of two possible percentages, as requiring the employer to pay the higher of the two. It was fanciful that the unions would have agreed that the employer could choose between them and this must have been obvious to the employer. It would have been nonsensical for the clause to provide for a maximum pay increase (which would be the effect if the employer could choose), rather than a minimum. (Anderson v LFEPA)
Of course, best practice is to avoid ambiguity by careful drafting!
Key contacts
Steve Bell
Managing Partner - Employment, Industrial Relations and Safety (Australia, Asia), Melbourne
Emma Rohsler
Regional Head of Practice (EMEA) - Employment Pensions and Incentives, Paris
Disclaimer
The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.