Slack & Ors v Cumbria County Council & Anor

For equal pay limitation purposes, each new contract ordinarily triggers time in respect of the equality clause in the superseded contract. An express, comprehensive and unambiguous agreement that a new employment contract supersedes an earlier one must be given effect.

The statutory exception for a stable employment relationship extends to an uninterrupted succession of contracts for substantially the same employment. In such a case, the six-month period runs from the end of that stable relationship. This construction applies whether or not there are gaps between contracts and makes domestic limitation law compatible with European Union equal pay law.

Three council employees brought equal pay claims after signing documents which stated that new employment contracts superseded their previous contracts. Their work continued without a break. The Employment Tribunal held that the changes affecting Mrs Slack and Mrs Elliott merely varied continuing contracts, but that Mrs Athersmith entered a new contract when she changed from relief to permanent employment.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that all three had entered new contracts and that claims relating to the superseded contracts were out of time. On appeal, the employees and the Equality and Human Rights Commission raised additional arguments concerning successive contracts, stable employment and compatibility with European Union law.

The central issue was whether the statutory six-month period ran from the end of each contract or, where successive contracts formed a stable employment relationship, from the end of that relationship.

1. The appeals were allowed. Mrs Slack's and Mrs Elliott's equal pay claims were brought in time because both successive contracts formed part of a stable employment relationship. Mrs Athersmith's case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal for findings on whether her employment was also stable.

2. The signed documents were valid new contracts. Each was comprehensive, contained changed terms and expressly superseded the previous contract. There was no sham, improper pressure, public-policy objection or unusually onerous term requiring special notice. The express terms therefore left no room to infer that the parties merely varied the earlier contracts.

3. In a standard case under sections 2(4) and 2ZA(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, time runs from the termination of the particular contract containing the equality clause on which the claim is based. That rule applies whether another contract follows immediately or after a break.

4. The statutory stable-employment exception is not confined to successive short-term contracts separated by gaps. An uninterrupted succession of contracts for the same or substantially the same work is an a fortiori instance of stable employment. Under section 2ZA(4), time then runs six months after the stable employment relationship ends. Mrs Slack and Mrs Elliott performed the same work for many years without interruption; only their hours were reduced.

5. No overriding contract could be implied merely because successive express contracts were uninterrupted. Implication is available only where necessary to give efficacy to the parties' relationship. The express contracts already governed and adequately explained that relationship, and an overriding contract would conflict with their terms.

6. The six-month limitation scheme, including its contractual analysis, was compatible with European Union law. The Court of Justice had objected only to applying that analysis so as to bar claims arising within a stable relationship. The 2003 amendments cured that incompatibility. Domestic law therefore need not treat every succession of contracts as one continuous contract or defer time until the final contract regardless of stability.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed all three appeals. It restored the Employment Tribunal's conclusions for Mrs Slack and Mrs Elliott on the different ground that their successive contracts formed stable employment relationships. It remitted Mrs Athersmith's case for determination of that issue.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the Council's appeals concerning Mrs Slack and Mrs Elliott and dismissed Mrs Athersmith's appeal. It held that the signed documents conclusively created new contracts and that claims concerning the superseded contracts were out of time.
3. Employment Tribunal: Held that Mrs Slack's and Mrs Elliott's contractual changes were variations of continuing contracts, so their claims were in time. It held that Mrs Athersmith entered a new contract when she moved from relief to permanent employment and that her earlier claim was out of time.