REWARD INSIGHT
Dismissal, harassment, disability
Nicola Mullineux, senior employment specialist for Peninsula, reviews the decisions in three cases
Newcastle NHS Trust v Haywood In a landmark case, the Supreme Court has clarified when written notice of dismissal becomes effective in the absence of an express term. The employee was working as associate director of business development at Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospital Trust. Following a merger, Haywood was informed during a meeting on 13 April 2011 that her role was at risk of redundancy. The employer emphasised that a final decision had yet to be made on her redundancy, to which she asked if they could refrain from making this decision until she returned from her pre-booked holiday to Egypt which was scheduled to begin on 19 April. However, the employer could not agree to Haywood’s request and issued her with her notice of dismissal during her leave sending this by recorded delivery, standard delivery and email on 20 April. The Trust was aware the employee was out of the country at the time and the letter was
collected at the sorting office by her father and left at her house. The employee only had an opportunity to review this letter following her return on 27 April; as a result she believed her notice should have begun on this date as opposed to the trust who believed it should have begun on the date the letter was originally sent. The date that the notice ran from was important as the original notice issued by the employer would see Haywood’s position terminated prior to her fiftieth birthday, something which would significantly reduce her pension entitlements. ...the notice began on the day she had an opportunity to review the letter...
employment was effectively terminated prior to her fiftieth birthday. They agreed that the notice began on the day she had an opportunity to review the letter meaning Haywood was still employed on her fiftieth birthday and entitled to the higher pension. The Court of Appeal similarly concluded the dismissal notice only became effective on 27 April, as opposed to 20 April. The employer appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court which, however, also supported the claims of Haywood. By majority the Supreme Court held that in instances where there is no express contractual provision on when a written notice becomes effective, there is an implied contractual term which states this notice is only effective from the date it is received and read by the employee, or from the date they have had a reasonable opportunity to read it. As there was no express contractual provision in this case, the implied term meant the employee’s written notice of dismissal ran from the 27 April as there was no reasonable
The High Court were asked to determine when the notice became effective and, in turn, if Haywood’s
28
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | July - August 2018 | Issue 42
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker