Case law update - Resignation or dismissal?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the thorny issue of ‘dismissal by enforced resignation’. Overturning the decisions of the employment tribunal and the EAT, it held that there had been a dismissal notwithstanding that the employee in this instance had agreed to terms for his departure and had signed a letter confirming mutual termination. We look at the main issues.

Facts

S, an operations manager with RTL, was summoned to a meeting with senior management without any prior indication of the reason for the meeting. At this meeting, he was told that the company has lost confidence in him due to allegations of misconduct. Although there was some dispute as to the exact wording used, it was accepted that the employee was left in no doubt that the company was intending to terminate his employment. However, S went on to utilise the meeting to negotiate terms for his departure and signed a letter confirming those terms and agreeing that his employment would terminate on a specific future date.

Although the employment tribunal found that RTL had started off the meeting by effectively dismissing S, it concluded that ultimately the reason he left was because he negotiated favourable terms for a departure and therefore his departure was due to resignation. The EAT upheld this finding on appeal.

Court of Appeal’s decision

The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that there had been a dismissal and the subsequent discussions between the parties did not alter this. The employee’s purported ‘resignation’ was the result of a fait accompli and came about due to undue pressure. The Court concluded that there was a lack of genuine negotiation and discussions. In agreeing terms, S was doing no more than attempting to ‘salvage what he could from the inevitable fact that he was going to be dismissed’.

The Court was particularly influenced by the fact that S’s resignation had happened at the same meeting at which the question of the termination of his employment had been raised. Had S been afforded the opportunity to consider the matter properly and to take independent advice and still decided to agree terms, there would have been sufficient evidence to point to a genuine decision to resign rather than a dismissal. The Court was also influenced by the facts that the terms agreed at the meeting were not particularly advantageous to S.

The Court sent the case back to a new tribunal to consider S’s claim of unfair dismissal.

Comment

Employers should ensure that they follow proper disciplinary procedures when seeking to discipline or dismiss their employees.

Even if an employee appears purports to resign, an employment tribunal may still determine, on consideration of the surrounding circumstances, that there has in fact been a dismissal.


meta description:

hr and legal
employment tribunal
employment tribunals
resignation
dismissal and resignation
resign
unfair, constructive and wrongful dismissal
unfair dismissal
dismiss
discipline
discipline and grievances
related links
sandhu v jan de rijk transport limited

Welcome bot    logout | manage your profile

ABOUT EEFJOIN USCONTACT USPRESS ROOMCAREERS AT EEF
 > UK > what we do > HR & legal > briefings > employment law > Case law updates > Case law update - Resignation or dismissal?
HR and legal

Contact us:

EEF, the manufacturers' organisation - Broadway House - Tothill Street - London SW1H 9NQ
t: 020 7222 7777 f: 020 7222 2782 e: enquiries@eef.org.uk VAT registration number applied for

EEF Limited is the organisation for manufacturing, engineering and technology-based businesses. It is an employers association regulated under Part II of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and a company limited by guarantee. EEF Limited is registered in England and Wales, registered no 05950172, and its registered office is Broadway House, Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9NQ

privacy policy