In Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] IRLR 1073 SC, the Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is effected by letter, the effective date of termination (from which the time limit for an unfair dismissal claim begins to run) does not occur until the letter is read or until the point at which the employee has had a reasonable opportunity to read it. In doing so, the Court rejected the contention that ordinary contractual principles should apply so that the effective date of termination would be the date on which the letter is delivered.
Employers faced with an employee who has been convicted of a criminal offence outside work must look at all the circumstances and still follow their usual disciplinary procedure before making a decision to dismiss, as this tribunal judgment shows.
In Wood v Caledon Social Club Ltd and another EAT/0528/09, the EAT held that a TUPE transfer arose even though the business had temporarily ceased operating at the time of the transfer.
This case is a reminder to employers of the dangers of making fundamental changes to an employee's job when attempting to cut costs during a business downturn.
In this case, an employment tribunal held that the heavy-handed way in which a manager dealt with suspected unauthorised absence entitled the employee to resign and claim unfair dismissal.