Wess v Science Museum Group

An employee’s continued work may amount to acceptance of varied contractual terms where the employer offers employment under an entirely new contractual package, parts of which take immediate effect, and the employee knowingly works under it for a substantial period without objection. The inference depends on the facts. Mere delay may be neutral where an employer has unilaterally altered a term with no immediate practical impact.

In a redundancy selection exercise, the presence of panel members against whom the employee has raised grievances does not itself render the process unfair. The tribunal must assess whether the composition was unreasonable or actually affected the fairness and independence of the assessment.

The Claimant, a Senior Curator, was dismissed for redundancy in November 2012. She had moved to a new role in 2003 and received an unsigned replacement contract which reduced her notice entitlement from six months to 12 weeks. She worked under the new arrangements for about nine years without objecting to the notice provision.

During a later restructuring, she unsuccessfully applied for an alternative Deputy Keeper role. Two members of the selection panel were the subject of her outstanding grievances. The London (Central) Employment Tribunal dismissed her unfair- and wrongful-dismissal claims. Her appeal challenged the finding that she had accepted the contractual variation and the fairness of the panel’s composition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the Claimant had accepted the new contract and its 12-week notice term. This was not merely an isolated, unilaterally imposed alteration to a dormant term. The Respondent offered a new role under a new contractual package, including a new job description, terms, handbook and pay-protection arrangements. Some features operated immediately.

2. The Claimant knew of the notice change, objected to the grading of the new role, but raised no objection to the new contractual terms and worked under them for about nine years. Her trade-union experience was a relevant factual consideration. A notice term could also have practical significance for job security. On those facts, the Employment Tribunal could infer acceptance; the challenge was, properly analysed, one of perversity and did not meet that high threshold.

3. The redundancy dismissal was fairly assessed. The Employment Tribunal had scrutinised the concern that two panel members were subjects of grievances. It found that changes to the panel had addressed the concern, the other members were independent, the two challenged members shared one vote, the scoring was recorded during the process, and there was no collusion.

4. The Employment Tribunal’s conclusions that the panel’s composition was neither unreasonable nor causative of unfairness were findings open to it. No error of law or other proper appellate challenge was established.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the dismissal of her wrongful- and unfair-dismissal complaints.
• London (Central) Employment Tribunal: judgment sent on 22 July 2013; dismissed complaints including unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal.