In Vision Events (UK) Limited v Paterson, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held there was no implied term in an employee’s contract whereby he was entitled to payment for 1,042 hours of flexi-time when his contract was terminated by reason of redundancy.

The EAT’s decision overturned the Employment Tribunal’s (“ET’s”) original decision that there was an implied term in the employment contract. There was no contractual provision nor any provisions in the employee handbook. The ET (i) did not believe Paterson had to forfeit the flexi hours, (ii) did not believe the employee could have been asked to take such hours during his notice period as he had an entitlement to notice pay, and (iii) felt that the employer’s offer to pay half of the flexi hours cut across its argument that it had no contractual obligation to pay.  

Vision Events appealed to the EAT which found that it was not necessary for the contract to work to imply such a term nor was such a term believed to apply when the contract was entered into. In addition, offering to pay Paterson half of the flexi hours was a goodwill gesture and did not impact on Vision Event’s case that it was not contractually obligated to make such a payment to Paterson. The EAT confirmed that Vision Events was entitled to require Paterson to take his flexi hours during his notice period given that it was allowed to direct when such hours should have been taken and did not impact on its obligation to provide Paterson with notice and notice pay.  

Vision Events (UK) Limited v Paterson EAT/0015/13/BI