Close Sidebar
Recent Comments
    <span class=April, 2017" />

    The recent Employment Tribunal (Scotland) case of, ‘Kinnear -v- Marley Eternit Ltd t/a Marley Contract Services’, highlights the importance of having well drafted and clear contracts in place within a business.

    The Facts
    The Claimant, Mr Kinnear was employed in October 2014 by Marley Eternit Ltd t/a Marley Contract Services, the Respondent as an Apprentice Roof Tiler. The contract which the Claimant entered into was for a fixed period of 4 years, and was due to end in November 2018, at which time the Claimant would obtain a Certificate of Completion of a Modern Apprenticeship, in Construction Roofing Operations.

    The Respondent advised the Claimant around July 2016 that he was to be made redundant due to a ‘downturn’ in the business’ workload, and the Claimant was given 1 weeks’ notice of his employment terminating. The Claimant chose to appeal the decision to terminate his employment, however, this was rejected.

    Following the termination of his employment, the Claimant sought alternative employment, however, due to the fact that he had not completed his apprenticeship, and also as he was over 21 years old his efforts to secure alternative employment were unsuccessful. Without his completed roofing qualification, the Claimant struggled to find work as a roofer.

    The Claimant presented a claim for breach of contract in the Employment Tribunal, making a claim for his loss of earnings, for the full duration of his contract.

    The Outcome
    In this case the claim was not defended by the Respondent, and the Tribunal ruled that the Claimant had been employed on a fixed term basis as an Apprentice, and as such he was entitled to receive the appropriate training, and to be an employee of the Respondent’s until his contract was due to end in late 2018.

    The Employment Tribunal accepted that due to the downturn in the economy, and as a result of the Claimant’s age (he was 21 years old and therefore, arguably less attractive to employers who sought to engage apprentices on lower wages, i.e. under 20 years old or even under 18 years old) it would be difficult for the Claimant to obtain new employment.

    When assessing the Claimant’s position, the Tribunal noted that he had made efforts to mitigate his losses, they considered his possible future losses and decided to take a broad-brush approach and assessed the Claimant’s chances of obtaining comparably well paid employment, (the minimum wage or higher) at 20%. The Claimant was therefore, awarded damages of £25,000 (the maximum an Employment Tribunal can award for breach of contract).

    The Law
    By law a contract, including an employment contract is an agreement between two (or more) parties. The parties enter in to the agreement under agreed terms and are agreeing to each act in accordance with the terms agreed. If one party breaches the terms of the contract, and in doing so the other party suffers a loss, or is at a detriment as a result of the breach, that party is entitled to be compensated for any loss sustained as a result.

    Guidance for Employers
    In order to avoid a situation such as this all businesses should ensure that they have well drafted contracts of employment, whether they are standard contracts of employment, or fixed term contracts of employment.

    Arguably, this situation and the award for damages could have been avoided if the Respondent had provided a contract of employment which included relevant break clauses, (a clause giving a party the option to terminate the agreement before its expiry).

    We would always recommend that businesses take advice from a qualified Employment Lawyer when considering contracts of employment, as poorly drafted contracts, if scrutinised by an Employment Tribunal could be costly to a business.

    If you are considering offering a fixed term contract to an employee, or have any questions relating to contracts of employment, please get in touch with our specialist Employment Lawyers on 0161 478 38000 or we would be happy to discuss your needs, and/or review any contracts that you may already have in place for a fixed fee.

    Is there a high threshold for employers to make a dismissal reasonable if it is for ‘SOSR’?

    No, according to the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of ‘Ssekisonge -v- Barts Health NHS Trust’. In this case Ms Ssekisonge, the Claimant and a nurse, was working in the UK after being granted indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship. The Claimant’s citizenship, however, was then revoked when the Home Office began to investigate concerns over her identity.

    The employer, the Respondent, was an NHS Trust, who was aware of the allegations regarding the Claimant’s identity, and took the decision to rely on ‘some other substantial reason’, as a fair reason to proceed to the Claimant’s dismissal.

    You may ask, what is some other substantial reason (SOSR)? It is one of the five potentially fair reasons for dismissal listed under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. SOSR is an important residual reason which can be relied upon by employers seeking to terminate an employee’s employment in many situations, for example, the end of a fixed term contract, or a loss of confidence in an employee.

    The Facts
    The Claimant had been a qualified and registered nurse since 2007, working for a number of NHS Trusts. On 2 January 2007, the Home Office wrote to the Claimant questioning her right to British Citizenship, due to questions arising over the name she had provided when she first entered the UK.

    The Claimant commenced working for the Respondent in 2011, during the recruitment process, she was asked to provide her British passport as evidence of her right to work in the UK. She did not tell the Respondent when she was offered employment, or thereafter, that there was any outstanding query in relation to her nationality or the validity of her passport. The Home Office contacted the Claimant again in 2013, the delay here was unexplained, however, the Claimant was advised that information received indicated that she had not disclosed her true identity, and that she was not, and never had been a British Citizen. Therefore, her British Citizenship and naturalisation should be declared null and void, however, her indefinite leave to remain would be unaffected.

    In 2014, the Disclosure and Barring service (DBS) ran a check on the Claimant and informed the Respondent that her DBS certificate had been revoked due to her British passport being revoked. The Respondent was told that the Claimant had been informed of this in September 2013 and that there was an ongoing investigation.

    The Respondent took the decision to dismiss the Claimant after a disciplinary process, regarding concerns over her identity and her conduct. The Claimant then presented a claim for unfair dismissal at the Employment Tribunal.

    Employment Tribunal Hearing
    The Employment Tribunal rejected the Claimant’s claim and found that the principal reason for dismissal was that the Respondent could not be certain of the Claimant’s identity, and therefore, that is was fair and for a ‘substantial reason’, in light of the Claimant’s role as a nurse and her correct identity being essential.

    The Claimant chose to appeal this decision.

    Employment Appeal Tribunal
    Whilst sympathy for the Claimant’s position was expressed, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision, finding that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, and that the dismissal was fair on the grounds of some other substantial reason, as certainty over an employee’s identity was essential for a nursing role.

    The Respondent could not continue to employ the Claimant because it could not complete all of the necessary background checks and there were associated risks with this.

    The Outcome and guidance to employers …
    The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the argument that employers should go further than they might otherwise do when dismissing for some other substantial reason, even where there is no fault on the part of the employee.

    We consider that the facts in this case are particularly unique, and as the Claimant worked as a Nurse for an NHS Trust, it is likely that absolute certainty about the employee’s identity is more important than it might be for an employee who is employed in a different sector, for example in retail. Employers should however, always be mindful of their duties to check that prospective employees have the right to work in the UK, by obtaining, copying and retaining suitable evidence before employment commences.

    Should you wish to discuss any aspects of Employment law, in particular recruitment, and/or dismissal of employees, please contact our specialist employment team on 0161 478 3800 or on

    Contact Us

    Peach Law LTD

    Landmark House, Station Road, Stockport, Cheshire, SK8 7BS

    Call | 0161 478 3800

    Email |

    Copyright 2017 Peach Law LTD Terms & Privacy

    Peach Law Twitter Feed