Are there any solicitors on this forum?

I'm not a solicitor but I'm sure that one would need to know the circumstances before commenting. That doesn't stop most of us from giving a non-professional viewpoint - on almost anything!

Just to be clear on a pedantic point. The difference between 'implied' and 'inferred' is that the person doing something 'implies' and the person who thinks it is what they meant has 'inferred' that meaning from what they have said.

Therefore, it's a matter of interpretation. So I would imagine that the legal profession have many different ways of looking at it. The 'receiver' may have thought that was the meaning 'inferred it' but the 'giver' may not think they have 'implied' that meaning.

In the end, it's the argument about 'that's not what I meant!' against 'oh, yes it is!'

 

Shiney is exactly right. Such terms are a minefield and a thing of joy for Solicitors/Barristers as it means a long and expensive legal argument where the interpretations, reasonings, and findings would vary from Court to Court.

 

I would be inclined to argue that the only discussion had with regard to change of hours was the initial request and agreement for six months. Therefore that agreement is still extant and that there would have to be a specific meeting/discussion to make that permanent. Having not brought it to the attention of the employee since then does not seem to me to be sufficient grounds to make it permanent.

As I said earlier, I'm not a lawyer so don't really know.

Following on from my previous post I would argue that for it to be implied consent (implied by the employee) there would have needed to be something specific to imply it from. Therefore the employer seems to have taken an inference from something that was not really implied. They may have thought that the non-return to full time implied acceptance but their inference was taken on something that was not discussed or even hinted at.

The employee may have been remiss in not bringing the subject up at the end of the six month period but so was the employer. The employee may have been happy to continue on a part time basis whilst it was helping the employer (and the employee) but may not have wanted it to be converted to a firm contract - and would have expected to be asked whether they wished to continue on a part time basis.

It appears to me that the employer deliberately did not bring the subject up because they were hoping that the employee could, eventually, be persuaded/bullied into thinking they had no choice. My argument would contain the fact that to have no choice would imply that a choice had first been offered and accepted.