The employers were unhappy about the claimant’s performance though they gave him no warning. He was invited to a meeting in London to discuss pay but was there told that they were to discuss his shortcomings. A list was read out to him, and he was told that one way of resolving the problem was to part company, on a voluntary basis. It was stated thus: ‘What we are suggesting is a voluntary arrangement, and it is not a question of us dismissing you tomorrow as an alternative’. Later that day, and over the next few days, negotiations took place, after which C was presented with a resignation letter, which he signed, and a cheque for andpound;5,570, which he accepted. He subsequently claimed unfair dismissal. His claim succeeded before the Industrial Tribunal.
Held: The emloyers appeal succeeded. He and his employer had come to a genuine agreement, free from pressure, that there should be a resignation on suitable terms. It was for Mr. Crowley to show that the employers’ conduct caused him to leave: he had not done so and could not claim constructive dismissal.
Slynn J said:- ‘The cases to which they (the Tribunal) were referred do not decide that an employee cannot resign pursuant to an agreement with his employers. What those cases decide is that if the departure of the employee is caused by the threat of dismissal if the man does not resign, or if the agreement to resign is not a genuine one and arrived at without pressure, then there is a dismissal. But they leave open the possibility that the cause of the departure is not the threat of the dismissal, but is the agreement which is arrived at and possibly the payment of money as a result of that agreement. So we consider here that the tribunal did on this aspect of the case properly and correctly direct themselves in law.
They considered whether there really had been a resignation free from pressure by the time it was arrived at, or whether there was here a dismissal disguised behind a request for resignation. They were satisfied that the gap between what happened on the 14 July and the decision by Mr. Crowley to accept the cheque and to sign the letter on the 18 July was sufficient for this to have been in his case a genuine resignation. They were satisfied that there had been proper negotiation and it is clear that the figures which were discussed rose substantially as we have said from the equivalent of a former salary for four months to something like a year, with a number of extras. It seems to us that there was evidence here upon which the tribunal could conclude that Mr Crowley had deliberately chosen to resign on this occasion; that it was an agreement arrived at free from the unfortunate circumstances in which the first meeting took place and arrived at genuinely.
Judges:
Slynn J
Citations:
[1979] EAT 31/79, Unreported, 20 April 1979
Cited by:
Cited – Sandhu v Jan De Rijk Transport Ltd CA 10-May-2007
The court was asked whether the claimant had been dismissed or had resigned. He had attended a meeting to be told that his contract was to be finished. The company later complained that he had resigned when they were unable to reach a compromise on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.268097