Ms Heslip worked as a sales manager for drug company Teva, covering the Cornwall area, until she was made redundant from her position. According to Teva, the reason for her redundancy was that the company would no longer be actively marketing their products in Cornwall. After consultation, she was notified of her redundancy with immediate effect by letter on May 2nd 2008, and given a month’s pay in lieu of notice.

However, on August 13th Ms Heslip was told by a colleague that Teva was still covering Cornwall. She sought legal advice on the 19th of August and lodged a claim of unfair dismissal against her former employer on August 29th, after the bank holiday.

Her claim was upheld by an employment tribunal. It found that the letter which notified her of her redundancy contained ambiguities, and that her effective date of termination (EDT) was actually June 2nd, which meant that her claim had been made within the allotted three-month time limit.

The tribunal also found that, even if the EDT had been May 2nd, Ms Heslip could not have brought her case within the time limit as she did not learn that Teva’s actions were not all that they had seemed to be until August 13th, and so could not have brought her claim any earlier.

Teva appealed the decision, winning on one point but losing the case overall.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) determined that the original tribunal’s finding that the letter Teva had sent was ambiguous was perverse. It clearly established that Ms Heslips contract of employment was to terminate immediately, and that the payment of one month’s wages was made in lieu of notice.

In considering the role that the additional information played in the timing of Ms Heslip’s claim, the EAT applied the case of Marley (UK) v Anderson [1996] ICR 728, which established that where a later discovery leads to a change in belief as to the possibility of bringing an unfair dismissal claim, reasonable practicability is to be assessed “ground by ground and fact by fact”.

If a claimant was, through no fault of their own, ignorant of a fact which is fundamental to their claim, then they cannot reasonably have been expected to present that claim. When the new information gleaned brings about a genuine change in belief as to the possibility of bringing a case, the time limit runs from the time when the information was received rather than the EDT.

The EAT ruled that this part of the original tribunal’s ruling was sound, and the appeal was therefore dismissed.

Technorati Tags: EAT, Effective Date of Termination, Unfair Dismissal