Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Mr C Yucetas v Ersan and Co Solicitors [2017]
Mr C Yucetas v Ersan and Co Solicitors [2017]
Published on: 13/09/2017
Issues Covered: Contracts of Employment Pay
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
John Taggart BL
John Taggart BL
Background

The claimant, a paralegal, worked part-time at the respondent solicitor’s firm and was initially employed by way of oral contract. There was no dispute between the parties that a meeting had been held in May 2015 regarding bonuses for paralegals and the claimant was eligible for an increased bonus. The respondent, however, argued that the contractual terms were such that the claimant would only receive the bonus if he was employed and not under notice by the end of June in any financial year. The claimant denied any such term ever existed. After handing in his notice in April 2016, the claimant enquired about his notice pay and was informed that he had not been employed at the right time of the financial year to be eligible. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence and held that the company could not unilaterally alter what was agreed between the parties by issuing a draft contract with different terms. The claim was allowed and the firm was ordered to pay £13,830.50 to cover the unpaid bonus as well as the claimant’s lost wages.

Practical Lessons

The key legal point from this case unquestionably relates to the status of contractual terms. All contractual terms should ideally be agreed in writing before the commencement of employment and this is particularly true where bonus schemes are concerned. Whilst it is common practice for the precise details of bonuses to be ironed out after employment begins, this case demonstrates that having a ‘black and white’ agreement beforehand can potentially save such complications. It was a contractual variation that caused the problem here, yet having the agreement written and signed is equally important. Although there is Court of Appeal authority holding that terms can be modified orally, even if there is a contractual clause requiring them to be in writing, employers should not completely discount them. Such a clause would serve to heighten the burden of proving that a variation had occurred and would put the employer in a stronger position evidentially.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59a6d062ed915d44ac71fdc1/Mr_C_Yucetas_v_Ersan_and_Co_Solicitors_Ltd_3323966.2016.pdf

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 13/09/2017