The employee had been given twelve weeks notice of redundancy dismissal, and was not required to attend work during the notice period, but then worked additional days. A letter was written in November stating ‘you are given 12 weeks’ notice of dismissal from this company with effect from 5.11.79. You will not be expected to work out your notice but will receive money in lieu of notice . .’
Held: The date of dismissal therefore was at the end of that period of notice. Where an employee is dismissed with notice but given pay in lieu of working out the notice period this is a dismissal with notice which does not cut down the period of employment. There is a distinction between an immediate dismissal but with a payment equivalent to what would have been a later period of employment.
Where the employer relies on a notice of termination having a particular effect, he is required to demonstrate unambiguously that it has that effect. Ambiguities in the notice properly construed, must be resolved in favour of the employee, since otherwise an employee may be left in doubt as to where he stands and may lose his statutory rights.
Slynn J
[1980] IRLR 416
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Calor Gas Ltd v Dorey EAT 26-Sep-1997
The employee had complained of unfair selection for redundancy. The effect of a letter dismissing him with notice was questioned.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal had erred in not allowing that there might be alternative situations . .
Cited – Chapman v Letheby and Christopher Ltd 1981
Date of termination of employment – employer required to show that the notice was clearly to the particular effect asserted by him. . .
Cited – Hannigan v A B Stratos Ltd EAT 11-Feb-1993
Claim by defendant that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction, saying that it had been filed out of time. . .
Cited – Bestwide Ltd (T/A Telford Hotel Golf and Country Club) v Butler EAT 29-Mar-1993
Query as to the date of termination of employment . .
Cited – Tallon v Manchester TEC Ltd EAT 18-Jan-1996
. .
Cited – Mostyn House School v Stovell EAT 20-Feb-1998
. .
Cited – Graham Group Plc v Garratt EAT 20-Feb-1997
Whether claim in time – effective date of termination . .
Cited – HQ Service Children’s Education (MOD) v Davitt EAT 28-Jan-1999
. .
Cited – MMD (Shipping Services) Ltd v Philpott EAT 1-May-1999
. .
Cited – Enesco European Giftware Group Ltd v Birkett EAT 6-Dec-2001
. .
Cited – Opare-Addo v Wandsworth EAT 5-Dec-2002
. .
Cited – Pace Telecom Ltd v Mcauley CANI 5-Oct-2011
. .
Cited – Gibson v St Patrick Visitor Centre Ltd NIIT 16-Jan-2012
. .
Cited – McCabe v Greater Glasgow Health Board EAT 10-Jun-2014
EAT Jurisdictional Points : Claim In Time and Effective Date of Termination
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Dismissal/ambiguous resignation
A claim for unfair dismissal was held out of time on the basis that the . .
Cited – Mehta v London Borough of Haringey EAT 3-Jul-2006
EAT held that on the factor of this case the letter of dismissal was unambiguous and there was therefore no place for the application of the contra proferentem rule of construction. There was therefore no need to follow Chapman v Letheby and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.453057
Comments are closed.