CS The appellant applied for a job with the respondent. Her offer was confirmed in writing. When the offer was withdrawn before she began to work, she claimed damages under s131.
Held: The employment contract started with the acceptance of the letter of offer of employment, and even before work commenced: ‘the contract in the present case was terminated by the employer, but Mr Fletcher argues that the employee would not have been employed under that contract, and therefore could not claim for unfair dismissal. We disagree. We have already pointed out that someone is an ’employee’ merely because he or she has entered into a contract of employment. If that is so, to construe the word ’employed’ in a different and more demanding way seems to us to be unjustified. Moreover, we cannot see why someone engaged under a contract of employment to start work at a future date but whose contract is then terminated because it is discovered that she is pregnant or that he or she is a member of a trade union should not, as a matter of principle, be able to claim for unfair dismissal. He or she may already have given notice to his or her previous employer, as happened in the present case. That ability so to claim would make available the remedy of reinstatement which would not be available merely by proceedings taken in a court of law.’
Judges:
Keene J
Citations:
Times 23-Apr-1997, [1997] UKEAT 493 – 96 – 2503, [1997]IRLR 328
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 131
Citing:
Cited – Hochster v De La Tour QBD 25-Jun-1853
The plaintiff said that the defendant had given him a contract to travel with him and to act as the defendant’s courier, but then changed his mind. The plaintiff obtained another engagement to start before the proposed term. The defendant said there . .
Cited – General of Salvation Army v Dewsbury EAT 1984
An employment contract made on or about 1st April 1982, under which a teaching post was offered to and accepted by the respondent to commence on 1st May 1982. The 1st May was a Saturday and 3rd May was a Bank Holiday, so that the respondent only . .
Distinguished – Mobbs v Nuclear Electric Ltd EAT 8-Aug-1996
An IT Chair should not sit alone at preliminary hearing if evidence is to be given. . .
Cited – Tsangacos v Amalgamated Chemicals Ltd and Another EAT 6-Nov-1996
The Chairman of a tribunal may always hear questions as to matters of jurisdiction alone. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89013