B who was mentally disabled, worked cleaning up swing-parks. There was an altercation with the District Manager and the Foreman which ended by Mr Barclay saying that he wanted his books ‘the next day.’ The next day was a pay day and the manager gave instructions for B to sign the form to terminate his employment. Though not keen to B did sign, but over the weekend realised what had happened and went into work on the Monday. He was sent home by the foreman saying that he had resigned.
Held: Lord McDonald said ‘It may be that the majority of the tribunal were correct in holding that when the appellant demanded his books on the Thursday, notwithstanding that it was in the heat of the moment, he meant it at the time. The real question however is whether or not in the special circumstances the respondents were entitled to assume that this was a conscious rational decision. It is true that the majority refer to the exceptional circumstances of the case but we do not consider that having regard to the observations in Sothern v. Franks Charlesly and Co, it is sufficient to dismiss the unusual aspect of this case in this way. We consider that the proper approach is to have regard, not merely to what was said on the Thursday, but to what happened the following day and indeed to the fact that the appellant did report for work on the following Monday apparently under the impression that he was still employed. At the very least there was, in our view, an obligation upon the respondents when the appellant reported on Friday to seek some form of confirmation that his act of resignation was in fact a genuine one and fully understood. Instead of that they adopted what we consider to be the indefensible practice of requiring him against his will, to sign a blank document which presumably on some subsequent occasion was filled in by them with the word ‘resigned’ written opposite the entry ‘Reason for Leaving’. Further we agree with the observation of the dissenting member that in the special circumstances of this case a reasonable employer would at least have consulted with one of the appellant’s sisters before assuming the appellant meant the words that he had used. For these reasons we propose to allow the appeal’
Judges:
Lord McDonald
Citations:
[1983] IRLR 313
Citing:
Cited – Sothern v Frank Charlesly and Co CA 1981
Where an employee gives an unequivocal and unambiguous notice of his resignation, then that can be accepted by an employer and there is no dismissal. Where the unambiguous words are said in a moment of anger or in the heat of the moment or where . .
Cited by:
Cited – Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham EAT 5-Feb-1992
The applicant claimed unfair dismissal. The employer replied that the employee had resigned.
Held: The employer’s appeal was dismissed. The resignation had taken place in a heated moment, and it was not conclusive. An employer may not be able . .
Cited – Willoughby v C F Capital Plc EAT 13-Jul-2010
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Dismissal/ambiguous resignation
Whether employee was dismissed – unambiguous words of dismissal used by employer – Tribunal erred in law in holding that by reason of ‘special . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.251739