S was employed as a Security Officer. After discovering a cash shortage, his superior, P, rang him and suspended him forthwith pending police investigations. S responded by saying ‘I am not having any of that, you can stuff it, I am not taking the rap for that’. He then rang his immediate superior Mr Scroggie and told him that he would not be in to relieve him the following morning as arranged. S subsequently complained to the Industrial Tribunal of unfair dismissal. The Tribunal found for him. The employer’s appeal was dismissed, and they appealed again.
Held: The employer’s appeal was dismissed.
May LJ said: ‘In my opinion, generally speaking, where unambiguous words of resignation are used by an employee to the employer direct or by an intermediary, and are so understood by the employer, the proper conclusion of fact is that the employee has in truth resigned. In my view Tribunals should not be astute to find otherwise.’ But he then continues: ‘However, in some cases there may be something in the context of the exchange between the employer and the employee or, in the circumstances of the employee him or herself, to entitle the Tribunal of fact to conclude that notwithstanding the appearances there was no real resignation despite what it might appear to be at first sight.’ and
‘There was that evidence from those two witnesses on which in my judgment it was possible for the Industrial Tribunal, were they so minded, having seen and assessed the witnesses giving evidence in the witness-box, to conclude that the words actually used by the employee to Scoggie were used in the heat of the moment and should not have been accepted at full face value by the employers. There was thus, in my opinion, evidence entitling the Industrial Tribunal to make the findings which they did in paragraph 7 of their decision, which was, as I think, just as much one of fact as their findings of fact set out in paragraph 4 of the decision, that ‘the applicant was not tendering his resignation to Mr Scroggie’.’
Judges:
May LJ
Citations:
[1989] IRLR 115
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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 – Ali v Birmingham City Council EAT 27-Oct-2008
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Dismissal/ambiguous resignation
1. The claimant handed in a letter of resignation to the respondents and he was then given a period of about 30 minutes to reconsider his decision.
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.251740