Dismissal advice erred
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ESS there was a break of a clear week between the dismissal of mployee and his re-engagement the employment was deemed a continuous. Advice given by the Department of Employment . S. Holmes Plant Hire Ltd, that lorry driver T. H. Jones was not bled to a redundancy payment because of a break in service, was neous.
his was said by a wsbury industrial tribunal n it ruled that Mr Jones was led to £222 in redundancy He joined the company in )h 1979.
!ere was no dispute over the iissal of Mr Jones on the [nds of redundancy, but folng advice from the Departt of Employment the corn( claimed that he was not itled to a redundancy nent as his employment had e to an end on November 7, I, and Mr Jones had been reaged under new contract on amber 10.
hat had happened was that ovember the company had Jed to terminate Mr Jones's loyment because of a reJancy in that it had been pelled to take two vehicles he road.
)wever, one of the cornIs other drivers who was ig retained was taken ill. sequently Mr Jones was Id to come back the folng week to be employed on porary week to week basis. Jones readily accepted that learly understood that when yther driver returned to work Nould be dismissed unless business picked up.
When the company sought advice from the redundancy office, said the tribunal, it was told that he was not entitled to a redundancy payment because of his break in service. There was no doubt in taw that that advice was erroneous'.
Despite the fact that a previous period of employment had been brought to an end by way of dismissal, resignation, or by mutual consent unless there was a break of a clear week the employment was deemed to be continuous.