| Ford v Warwickshire CC | |
|---|---|
 Canal near the College | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1983] 2 AC 71, [1983] ICR 273 |
| Keywords | |
| Unfair dismissal | |
Ford v Warwickshire CC [1983] 2 AC 71 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Mrs Ford worked from September to July on successive fixed term contracts for 8 academic years as a part-time lecturer at the Warwickshire College of Further Education until September 1979. Then she was told her contracts would not be renewed. Given the summer breaks, the question was whether her summer holiday breaks counted as merely temporary cessations of work. She sought to claim her dismissal was unfair, but was told that her year long fixed term contract was not enough to meet the necessary qualifying period.
The House of Lords unanimously held that Mrs Ford was continuously employed, and the summer breaks were merely temporary cessations of an ongoing contract, despite being drafted as fixed terms. Lord Diplock held that there was enough continuity of employment to establish the qualifying period. ‘One looks to see what was the reason for the employer’s failure to renew the contract on the expiry of its fixed term and asks oneself the question: was that reason ‘a temporary cessation of work,’ within the meaning of that phrase’. So for dismissal and redundancy, the period is broken unless ‘there is to be found between one fixed term contract and its immediate predecessor an interval that cannot be characterised as short relatively to the combined duration of the two fixed term contracts. Whether it can be so characterised is a question of fact and degree and so is for decision by an industrial tribunal…’
Lord Keith, Lord Roskill and Lord Brandon concurred.
Lord Brightman said the following. [1]
Suppose that in August 1977 the appellant was engaged under a contract of employment of indefinite duration, starting in September 1977, subject to one week's notice on either side. Suppose that on July 1, 1978, the council gave the appellant one week's notice because her pottery class would not extend beyond July 8, 1978. Suppose that in August 1978 she was engaged under a similar but new contract of employment for an indefinite term starting in September 1978. It could not, I apprehend, be doubted that she would have been absent from work within the meaning of the Act during the 1978 summer vacation on account of a temporary cessation of her work.
Suppose that her contract was determinable by one month's notice on either side, and that such notice was therefore given on June 8, 1978. Again, I apprehend that there is no doubt that the vacation period would "count" on the true construction of the Act.
Both these cases are susceptible to the same analysis as the fixed term contract; that is to say, the appellant's work comes to an end on July 8 because that is the date of expiry of the notice; the notice is served on June 8 or July 1 in anticipation of the fact that her work will cease on July 8, which in the event may or may not prove to be the case. The argument that a fixed term contract ceases on account of the effluxion of time can equally be applied to these two hypothetical cases; the work ceases because the term of the notice has expired. In the cases supposed the immediate cause of cessation of work is, in a sense, the expiry of the notices of dismissal; the effective cause is the anticipated cessation of work.
There is no essential difference in my view where the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the term being fixed by reference to the anticipated availability of work. In the fixed term contract of the kind which features in this case the employer, in effect, gives notice when the contract is signed of the date when the employment is to cease, instead of reserving to himself the right to give such notice at a later date. If paragraph 9 (1) (b) is intended to apply to a case where notice of dismissal is served during the currency of the contract on account of an anticipated cessation of work, I can see no logical reason why it should be supposed not to apply where the contract itself indicates when the employment is to cease, if that is on account of the anticipated cessation of work. In my view paragraph 9 (1) (b) is not concerned with the means employed for bringing the employment to an end temporarily but with the reason for bringing it to an end.
I think that this approach to paragraph 9 (1) (b) is consistent with sections 55 (2) and 83 (2). For the purposes of a claim of unfair dismissal and a claim for a redundancy payment, no distinction is to be drawn between a contract for an indefinite period which is terminated by a dismissal notice and a contract for a fixed period which expires without being extended or otherwise renewed. In each case the employee is to be treated as dismissed by the employer. If it is irrelevant to the employee's right to *90 claim on the ground of unfair dismissal, or to claim a redundancy payment, whether the employee's work has ended owing to the expiry of the fixed term of the contract or owing to the expiry of the term of the notice of dismissal, it seems to me entirely consistent that the "counting" process under paragraph 9 (1) (b) should likewise have no regard to the question whether the "absence from work" was the immediate result of the dismissal notice, or the immediate result of the expiry of a fixed term specified in the contract. The absence must be "on account of a temporary cessation of work," but that requirement can be satisfied equally by a cessation which exists or is anticipated when the employee is dismissed with notice or by a cessation which exists when he is dismissed without notice, or by a cessation which is anticipated when the fixed term is introduced into the contract.
I therefore reach the conclusion that the appellant can properly be described as "absent from work" during each of the vacation periods which spanned her successive contracts of employment and that such absence can properly be described as "on account of a temporary cessation of work" notwithstanding that the contract was brought to an end by the expiry of its fixed term, instead of by the expiry of the term of the dismissal notice; and that an expected cessation of work which governs the length of the fixed term satisfies the words "on account of a temporary cessation of work," just as an expected cessation of work which leads to a dismissal notice would have satisfied those words.
United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum set of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.
In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.
Termination of employment or separation of employment is an employee's departure from a job and the end of an employee's duration with an employer. Termination may be voluntary on the employee's part, or it may be at the hands of the employer, often in the form of dismissal (firing) or a layoff. Dismissal or firing is usually thought to be the employee's fault, whereas a layoff is generally done for business reasons outside the employee's performance.
Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason.
Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 is an International Labour Organization Convention. Its purpose is to coordinate minimum levels of job security in the laws of ILO member states.
A severance package is pay and benefits that employees may be entitled to receive when they leave employment at a company unwillfully. In addition to their remaining regular pay, it may include some of the following:
Japanese labour law is the system of labour law operating in Japan.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.
Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd, 1997 CanLII 332, [1997] 3 SCR 701 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian employment law, particularly in determining damages arising from claims concerning wrongful dismissal.
United Kingdom agency worker law refers to the law which regulates people's work through employment agencies in the United Kingdom. Though statistics are disputed, there are currently between half a million and one and a half million agency workers in the UK, and probably over 17,000 agencies. As a result of judge made law and absence of statutory protection, agency workers have more flexible pay and working conditions than permanent staff covered under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd (5.7.2000) Appeal No: EAT/1243/99, is a UK labour law case, concerning the TUPE Regulations.
Johnson v Unisys Limited [2001] UKHL 13 is a leading UK labour law case on the measure of damages for unfair dismissal and the nature of the contract of employment.
Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when workers are covered by employment rights when they work abroad.
Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families[2011] UKSC 14 and [2011] UKSC 36 is a UK labour law case, concerning the test for when the continued used of a fixed term contract is objectively justified, and when employees are covered by employment rights during work abroad. The case was joined with Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families v Fletcher.
Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38 is a case from Bermuda law, advised upon by the Privy Council, that is relevant for UK labour law and UK company law concerning the dismissal of a director.
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence[2011] UKSC 58 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.
High Table Ltd v Horst [1997] EWCA Civ 2000 is a UK labour law case, concerning redundancy in English Law in the Court of Appeal, the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
University of Stirling v UCU[2015] UKSC 26 is a UK labour law case, concerning the information and consultation in the European Union.
A termination of employment in Argentina is the rescission of an employee's employment contract, decided unilaterally by the employer, with or without a cause. As the requirements to proceed with a termination of employment and the consequences of the decision are regulated by each piece of legislation, there are differences depending on the country whose legislation is to be applied. This article refers exclusively to termination of employees who, having worked in Argentina, are governed by the laws of that country.