Mr S Teji Mr R Tyler v Mr W Moore trading as Bales College — 2019

The tribunal found that Mr S Teji and Mr R Tyler were long-serving teachers employed on successive academic-year fixed-term contracts. Although only one written contract had been signed in January 2011, the tribunal held that the parties’ later arrangements continued on the same terms and that the summer gaps counted towards continuity under section 212 ERA 1996, following Cornwall County Council v Prater. It also found that the contracts recommenced on 3 September 2018 for the 2018/2019 academic year. The tribunal noted that the original disability discrimination and unlawful deduction claims had been withdrawn, leaving unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and the written particulars issue for decision.

Ms Teji became ill in August 2018, and the correspondence in late August and September 2018 showed that both claimants expected to return when she recovered. The tribunal did not accept that Mr Tyler’s later supply work broke the employment relationship. It found that the email and letter of 28 September 2018 did not itself clearly terminate employment, but that the respondent’s later conduct, including the non-payment of sick pay and the information given to HMRC, was enough for a reasonable employee to understand that the employment had been terminated. The tribunal found that the dismissals took effect after 28 September 2018, likely on 29 October 2018 for Ms Teji and 31 October 2018 for Mr Tyler, with 8 November 2018 as the latest possible date.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that potentially fair reasons existed: capability and/or some other substantial reason for Ms Teji, and conduct and/or some other substantial reason for Mr Tyler. However, it found that the respondent followed no formal procedure, held no meeting, gave no warning, and made no proper consideration of when either claimant might return to work. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the dismissals were outside the range of reasonable responses and were unfair.

The tribunal also upheld wrongful dismissal. It found that the claimants were entitled to notice under their contracts and section 86 ERA 1996, but were not given notice before their employment ended. The tribunal dismissed the complaint about failure to provide written particulars because, on its findings, the latest contract had started on 3 September 2018 and the employment ended before the two-month period for providing a section 1 statement had expired. It added that, if that analysis was wrong, the claim would still fail because the claimants had received a written statement during their employment in 2010/2011.