{"id":4896,"date":"2016-09-27T18:53:14","date_gmt":"2016-09-27T18:53:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/simplylaw.waydevelopers.com\/england-wales\/wiki\/department-for-transport-v-sparks\/"},"modified":"2023-11-04T13:12:05","modified_gmt":"2023-11-04T13:12:05","slug":"department-for-transport-v-sparks","status":"publish","type":"articles","link":"https:\/\/simply.law\/england-wales\/articles\/department-for-transport-v-sparks\/","title":{"rendered":"If it looks contractual and smells contractual….."},"content":{"rendered":"

In Department for Transport v Sparks, the Court of Appeal has provided further useful guidance on whether staff handbook provisions (in this instance relating to absence management) had been incorporated into employees’ contracts.<\/span><\/p>\n

Facts<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Department for Transport is responsible for a number of government agencies, including the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Highways Agency. These agencies all have a Departmental Staff Handbook based on a standard format across the whole of the DfT.<\/span><\/p>\n

The provisions for attendance management for both of these agencies were fundamentally the same, but there was a variation in the number of days of absence required before a formal absence procedure could be triggered (ranging from 8 to 21 days).<\/span><\/p>\n

Unfortunately for the DfT, the handbook stated that all its terms that were \u2018apt for incorporation\u2019 were to be incorporated into employees’ contracts of employment. In addition, Part A of the Handbook (which included the absence management provisions) was expressly stated to be incorporated into employees’ contracts.<\/span><\/p>\n

It was also stated in the handbook that the DfT could make unilateral changes (i.e. changes without employees\u2019 consent) only if they were not detrimental to employees.<\/span><\/p>\n

In July 2012, following drawn-out and unsuccessful negotiations, the DfT informed the trade unions for DfT staff that it would be imposing a new standardised attendance management procedure across all its agencies. Under the new procedure, a process would be triggered after five days or three occasions of absence within a rolling 12 month period.<\/span><\/p>\n

Seven employees (under the guidance of the union) applied to the High Court for declaratory relief (i.e. a decision on the contractual status of the existing Handbook terms).<\/span><\/p>\n

The High Court\u2019s decision (perhaps unsurprisingly) was that the absence management terms were contractual and the DfT\u2019s appeal was roundly dismissed by the Court of Appeal.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In doing so, the Court of Appeal gave a useful summary of the factors to be considered:<\/span><\/p>\n