ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4123729/2018 Preliminary Hearing at Dundee on April and June 2019 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Teresa Coull v Represented by Mr R Russell Solicitor DPD Group UK Limited — 2019

The claimant presented a claim saying she had been constructively unfairly dismissed. The respondent challenged jurisdiction on the basis that she did not have the two years' continuous service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The only issue for the preliminary hearing was when the claimant's employment, after her resignation effective 27 January 2017, resumed for continuity purposes.

The tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 27 December 2016 to take alternative employment, then later sought to return. It accepted that there were discussions in January and February 2017, including the claimant's meetings and conversations with management and HR, but it did not accept her evidence that Mr Kington offered her reinstatement in a telephone call on 2 February 2017. The tribunal said there was no written evidence of such an offer, no supporting record from the mobile phone evidence produced, and no basis to conclude that the call occurred as the claimant described.

Instead, the tribunal found that the offer of reinstatement was made on 24 February 2017, after Mr Catlin's appeal had been dismissed and his position at the Dundee depot had ended. Applying section 212(1) ERA 1996 and relying on Welton v Deluxe Retail Ltd t/a Madhouse, the tribunal held that there had been a break in service between the resignation taking effect on 27 January 2017 and the later reinstatement offer. Continuity therefore began on 8 March 2017, when the claimant returned to work.

Because the claimant's employment then ended by resignation with effect from 6 September 2018, the tribunal held that she had not completed two years' continuous service. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded.