23 Claimants who until 1 st April 2000 were employed by a company called IT Services Ltd (ITS). On that date their employment was transferred to a CSC as part of a group of about 200 under the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 ("TUPE”). During their employment with ITS the claimants had benefitted from an annual pay rise to be rewarded subject to satisfactory performance. CSC had a full understanding of this contractual agreement. Their policy with regards to the RPI increases was made clear in a briefing document issued by CSC to managers for the purpose of pay review discussions in 2008. From 2001-2007 CSC granted the RPI increases.

However in 2008, after negotiations, the relevant trade union, an increase of only 3% was awarded despite a roughly 4% increase in RPI. In 2009 there was no RPI increase and accordingly no pay rise was awarded. The claimants argued that they were entitled to an increase according to RPI on the basis that either: (a) Their contracts with ITS were binding on CSC by virtue of TUPE. (b) Such an entitlement was implied in their contract based on the customs and conduct of the parties.

The Employment Tribunal found that the practice was contractual. His decision was based on both the length of time the conduct had continued and the fact that CSC had granted the pay rises despite the fact that they were manifestly disadvantageous; revealing a belief that they believed they were legally obliged to do so. http://bit.ly/HVIc4S