No Implied Term Requiring Payment For Unused Flexible Hours When Dismissed

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.