AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Contract was Al says tribunal

8th February 1990
Page 3
Page 3, 8th February 1990 — Contract was Al says tribunal
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

A MANCHESTER industrial tribunal ruled that a refusal to accept terms of employment from a firm's new owner did not break continuity of employment, under the transfer of undertakings provisions in the employment protection legislation. It found that the former managing director of Austin Caulfield Transport Ltd had sufficient service to qualify to make a claim for unfair dismissal against the new owner, A One Transport (Leeds)Ltd.

A One took over the business in Jan '89 from Bowies of Altrincham Ltd, which had bought it from Austin Caulfield in '86. Bowies had kept Caulfield on as manager. Before Christmas 1988, he was told Bowies was selling to A One, which would make a new employment agreement. When he resumed work on 3 Jan he was given a draft agreement, dated 1 Jan, which he found unsatisfactory. He accepted a revised one 6 Jan, and was paid from 1 Jan.

Caulfield was dismissed in April 1989 and A One maintained that he did not have two years' continuous service to claim unfair dismissal. The tribunal said that the July '86 contract remained in force until either party terminated it. No evidence showed Bowies had given notice to terminate. In its view, the contract with Bowies was never terminated; his agreement with Bowies was still in place on 3 Jan, and consequently, his continuity of service was preserved.

The merits of Caulfield's unfair dismissal claim are to be considered at a future date.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus