Briggs & Ors v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

The court decided a point of contractual construction of a nationally agreed collective agreement, the NHS "Agenda for Change" (AfC), specifically Annex R and Table 19 concerning Recruitment and Retention Premia (RRP). The central legal principle was that the verbal description in a collective list must be read in context: the ordinary meaning of a descriptive term can favour claimants but surrounding circumstances, including the document's purpose, pay bands, and the specific list format, can support a narrower meaning. The claimants, maintenance supervisors, argued they fell within the entry "Qualified maintenance craftspersons" (QMC) and so were entitled to RRP; the employer and tribunal majorities held that supervisors were a different type of post not covered by the Table. The Court of Appeal held that the narrower contextual construction was reasonably available and that there was no error of law in the tribunal's decision to exclude supervisors from QMC, having regard to the AfC's structure, the managerial character and pay banding of the supervisor posts, the absence of express inclusion of supervisors in Table 19 and the equal pay/recruitment context.

This appeal concerned whether posts with the local title "Maintenance Supervisor - Team Leader" were included within the AfC Annex R list entry "Qualified maintenance craftspersons" (QMC) and therefore entitled to nationally agreed Recruitment and Retention Premia (RRP). The claimants sought declarations and alleged unlawful deductions from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to pay RRP.

Background and parties

• The claimants were maintenance supervisors who held full craft qualifications and spent a minority of their time on hands-on maintenance tasks but principally performed supervisory, administrative and managerial duties (Band 5). The workers they supervised were maintenance workers (Band 3).
• The AfC (Version 2, August 2007, updated October 2007) contained Annex R and a Table 19 listing types of post prima facie entitled to RRP; QMC was listed at entry 11.

Procedural history

• The employment tribunal (ET) dismissed the claims by a majority of lay members who concluded supervisors were "fundamentally and qualitatively different" from QMC. The employment judge dissented, favouring the ordinary meaning that those with the required qualifications remain QMC.
• The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) (UKEAT/0483/08/RN) upheld the ET majority on 29 July 2009. Permission to bring the present appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted on renewal; the Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 16 February 2010 and delivered judgment on 17 March 2010.

Issues framed

• Whether the entry "Qualified maintenance craftspersons" in Table 19 of Annex R includes maintenance supervisors who hold the required craft qualifications.
• How to construe the AfC: whether by ordinary semantic meaning alone or in the light of surrounding context and purpose (including pay banding, the list format and equal pay considerations).

Reasoning and conclusion

• The court acknowledged the term QMC could be read in an ordinary wide sense to include qualified supervisors, and that a supervisor might remain a craftsperson after promotion. However, the court gave decisive weight to contextual factors: Table 19 is a catalogue of types of post (not a list of qualifications), supervisor roles are managerial and banded differently, other entries in the Table expressly address seniority when intended, and the RRP purpose is to meet recruitment and retention needs for posts shown to be in short supply.
• In the absence of evidence of a national shortage of supervisors, and in light of the equal pay background which would require objective justification for a premium, the narrower construction excluding supervisors was reasonably open and not legally wrong. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that although the ordinary meaning of "Qualified maintenance craftspersons" could include supervisors who hold craft qualifications, the surrounding context of the AfC (Table 19 as a list of types of post, pay band differentiation, the absence of an express entry for supervisors, and the recruitment/retention and equal pay background) supported a narrower construction excluding maintenance supervisors from QMC; there was therefore no error of law in the tribunal's majority decision.

Employment Tribunal (judgment sent 22 July 2008) — majority of lay members dismissed the claims; Employment Appeal Tribunal UKEAT/0483/08/RN (29 July 2009) — upheld the employment tribunal majority; Court of Appeal permission initially refused on the papers but granted on renewed application; appeal to Court of Appeal [2010] EWCA Civ 264 dismissed on 17 March 2010.