In his latest Coffee Break Briefing webinar, Frettens’ own Insolvency Guru Malcolm Niekirk looked at dealing with solvent liquidations with no tax clearance.
This is the summary of that briefing.
In this article,Chris Dobbs discusses constructive dismissal in relation to maternity leave. Looking at the case of Chemcem Scotland V Ure in particular.
Chris has written some other articles on this topic, which you can find in the related articles section below.
What is a constructive dismissal?
A constructive dismissal involves the employee resigning in response to fundamental breach of contract on the part of the employer. Normally the employee will need to make it clear both that they are resigning and that the reason for their resignation is the employer’s conduct.
In Chemcem Scotland Ltd v Ure however the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that these requirements were met by implication when an employee simply failed to return from maternity leave.
Chemcem Scotland v Ure
The case involves a family business in which the employee in question was the daughter of the owner. While she was on maternity leave, he was in the process of divorcing her mother, having formed a relationship with someone else – who was also an employee of his business.
If his daughter returned from maternity leave, she would be his new partner’s manager. It seems that this led to some tension and conflict.
When can you claim constructive dismissal?
The Tribunal identified a number of matters in the handling of her maternity leave that amounted to a breach of mutual trust and confidence. These included failing to pay her SMP on time and refusing to answer queries about what she was entitled to.
What qualifies as 'Implied resignation'?
The whole circumstances, the Tribunal found, showed that her father was hostile to the idea of her continued employment by the company. In the event she did indeed decide not to return but did not expressly resign.
The Tribunal found that her resignation could be implied from the circumstances and took effect on the day when she had been due to return to work.
The importance of clarifying your intentions
The EAT upheld this finding. It rejected the argument that the employee had not clearly communicated the fact that she was resigning or her reason for leaving.
As the Tribunal had pointed out the employer had not, when she failed to return, taken any steps to clarify matters or ask her about her intentions. In the circumstances of the case her failure to return was ‘eloquent of the true position’ and this was understood by the employer.
A specialist Employment Law Solicitor's view
Head of the Employment Team Chris Dobbs' thoughts: 'This will be a surprising outcome for many people who would expect a resignation to be in some way directly and expressly communicated. However, it is worth considering the opposite argument: if a change to a contract can be accepted by performance (deemed acceptance of a change of hours, for example) then not coming to work in certain circumstances could logically be deemed a termination and therefore a resignation.'
'This shows the importance more than ever of communicating with employees and taking steps to ascertain their position before making any assumptions about their motivation or intention.'
Related Articles:
Constructive dismissal and sick pay
Discrimination - dismissal after maternity leave
Redundancy during maternity leave
What is constructive dismissal and the final straw doctrine?
Employment solicitors in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Ringwood
At Frettens, we offer a free initial appointment for all new clients. This usually takes place over a coffee with one of our bright lawyers at our modern, conveniently located offices, but can also be over the phone or video call.
If you’d like to speak with one of our bright, friendly team, you can fill in the form on this page or give us a call on 01202 499255.
