Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [1987] UKHL 15 is a landmark case in UK labour law that deals with the complexities surrounding partial performance of contractual duties and industrial action. The case addresses whether an employer is entitled to withhold wages when an employee deliberately refuses to perform part of their contractual work during a strike or “go slow” action.
The House of Lords’ decision in this case clarified the legal position on the right of an employer to reject partial performance and withhold pay accordingly. Although the authority of the case has been debated in later years, Miles v Wakefield remains a pivotal reference for employment contracts involving industrial disputes.
Facts of Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
In Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, the claimant, Mr Miles, was employed as a registrar of births, deaths, and marriages, working a 37-hour week. As part of a union-led industrial action with the National and Local Government Officials union, Mr Miles refused to perform marriage ceremonies on Saturday mornings but continued with his other duties on the remaining days.
This refusal effectively reduced his working hours by three per week (the Saturday morning hours), and the council responded by deducting three thirty-sevenths from his weekly pay. The council’s position was that payment should be proportionate to the actual hours worked, reflecting the time lost due to the industrial action. The central legal issue was whether the council was entitled to make this deduction when Mr Miles continued to perform some of his duties, albeit refusing specific tasks during strike action.
Procedural History
At first instance, Nicholls J of the High Court held that the council was entitled to deduct pay for the hours not worked. However, this decision was overturned in the Court of Appeal where Parker LJ and Fox LJ held that the employer could not deduct pay unless the employee was dismissed. Eveleigh J dissented in this respect.
The case ultimately proceeded to the House of Lords, the highest court in the United Kingdom, which reversed the Court of Appeal majority and reinstated the decision that the employer was entitled to deduct pay for the part of the work that was not performed.
Legal Issues
The principal legal issues in Miles v Wakefield were:
- Whether an employer can lawfully withhold wages when an employee refuses to perform part of their contractual duties during industrial action.
- Whether an employer is obliged to pay wages if the employee offers partial or inefficient performance, such as “go slow” tactics.
- The effect of accepting partial performance on an employer’s obligation to pay wages.
- The relationship between breach of contract through industrial action and the entitlement to wages.
Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Judgement
The House of Lords, in a majority decision, held that the council was entitled to deduct pay for the whole week, including the time not worked on Saturday mornings. The court emphasised that where an employee refuses to perform the full duties under their contract, the employer is entitled to reject any partial performance and treat the employee as if they were refusing to work entirely.
Lord Bridge stated that an employer may refuse to accept partial performance and that the position is the same as if the employee had refused to work at all. The employer is thus justified in withholding wages for the period in question.
Lord Brightman elaborated that in cases of industrial action short of a strike, such as “go slow” actions where the employee works less than contractually required, the employer has a choice. The employer may either accept the partial performance and pay full wages for that period or reject it and pay nothing. In Miles v Wakefield, the employer chose to reject the partial performance and was entitled to withhold pay accordingly.
Lord Templeman delivered a memorable judgement highlighting the impracticality of requiring employers to pay wages when employees deliberately withhold part of their work to further a strike. He noted the potential chaos if employers were forced to issue dismissal and reinstatement notices daily during industrial disputes. He reiterated the fundamental principle that wages correspond to work performed; if work is not done, no wages are due.
Legal Principles Established
The case of Miles v Wakefield established several important principles in employment law:
- Rejection of Partial Performance: An employer is not required to accept partial performance of contractual duties and may lawfully refuse it. When an employee refuses to perform part of their contractual duties, the employer can treat this as a refusal to work altogether.
- No Payment for Unwanted Partial Work: If the employer rejects partial performance, the employee is entitled to no remuneration for the work the employer does not accept, even if it is performed.
- Quantum Meruit for Accepted Partial Work: If an employer accepts partial work as satisfying the contract, then full wages must be paid. Alternatively, if partial work is accepted out of necessity rather than contractual obligation, payment may be on a quantum meruit basis (reasonable value of services provided), not full contractual wages.
- Work and Wages Go Together: The employment contract is a mutual exchange of work for wages. If either party fails to perform their side, the other is relieved of their obligation.
- Industrial Action as Breach of Contract: Industrial action such as strikes or go slows constitute breaches of contract. Employers are entitled to take action, including withholding pay and dismissal, for deliberate breaches designed to harm their business.
Analysis of Judgements in Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
The judgements in Miles v Wakefield reflect a pragmatic and strict approach to employment contracts and industrial disputes. Lord Templeman’s criticism of paying workers “something for nothing” emphasises that wages must be earned through actual work. The ruling balances the interests of employers who must maintain business efficiency and discipline against the rights of employees to engage in industrial action.
The case also demonstrates the legal limits of partial performance in employment contracts. While partial work may sometimes be accepted, this acceptance carries implications for pay. Employers can choose to reject partial work, leaving employees without pay for the time not worked. This principle serves as a deterrent against half-hearted industrial action or go slow tactics.
Conclusion
In summary, Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [1987] UKHL 15 is a foundational case on the law of partial performance and pay deductions in the context of strike action. The House of Lords upheld the principle that employers are entitled to reject partial work and withhold wages proportionately. The decision clarifies that wages are payable only for work done or accepted, reinforcing the contractual link between work and remuneration. The case is a key authority on the legal consequences of industrial action short of a full strike and remains relevant for employment law practitioners and scholars alike.
