Lipinski v Ebbsfleet Autosray Centre Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Exclusions Including Worker/Jurisdiction): EAT 6 Jun 2013

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction
The issue to be determined was whether the Employment Tribunal erred in failing to hold that the Claimant’s continuity of employment was preserved by operation of the Employment Protection (Continuity of Employment) Regulations 1996 between the date of his dismissal and his reinstatement. It was held that for such continuity to be preserved three elements must be present: (1) the employee was dismissed by the Respondent; (2) he has presented a relevant complaint of dismissal; and (3) that in consequence of presenting such a relevant complaint he is reinstated or re-engaged. The presentation of a complaint of unfair dismissal to an Employment Tribunal which is related to the reinstatement or re-engagement is a ‘relevant complaint of dismissal’ within the meaning of Regulation 219(2)(b). This is the natural meaning of the words and does not depend on the extended definition of ‘relevant complaint of dismissal’ in the now repealed ERA section 219(3). It was not necessary to determine whether complaints of discrimination by dismissal which were previously included in the now repealed definition are still to be regarded as ‘a relevant complaint of dismissal’. Matter remitted to the ET to determine whether the Claimant was reinstated in consequence of bringing a complaint of unfair dismissal.

Slade J
[2013] UKEAT 0288 – 12 – 0606
Employment Protection (Continuity of Employment) Regulations 1996
England and Wales


Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514350