Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawDismissalUnfair dismissal

Case of the week: Welton v Deluxe Retail Ltd (t/a Madhouse)

by Clare Gregory 17 Jan 2013
by Clare Gregory 17 Jan 2013

Welton v Deluxe Retail Ltd (t/a Madhouse)

FACTS

Mr Welton worked at a store in Sheffield that closed down, and his employment was terminated on 23 February 2010. The working week ended on 27 February 2010. On 1 March, during what would have been his next working week, he agreed to accept employment with the same employer in Blackpool, with the first working day falling in the following week, on 8 March 2010. A few months later, his employment terminated. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

DECISION

At a pre-hearing review, the employment judge had to determine whether or not Mr Welton had sufficient continuity of service to bring the unfair dismissal claim. If his employment in Blackpool was continuous with his employment in Sheffield, he had sufficient service to bring the claim; if his employment was interrupted, he did not have sufficient continuity of service. The judge found there was no continuity of employment.

APPEAL

Mr Welton appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Three points arose:



  • Is an agreement made in one week to start work the following week a contract of employment that, under part XIV of the Employments Right Act 1996, means that there is no break in continuity because a contract of employment is deemed to have been in place for the whole of the week of dismissal and the week of re-engagement?

  • Alternatively, was there a temporary cessation of work to which s.212 of the Employment Right Act 1996 applied to preserve continuity?

  • Finally, was the judge right to regard an “arrangement” in s.212(3) of the Employments Right Act 1996 (which preserves continuity during any period in which the employee is absent, but by arrangement or custom is regarded as continuing in employment) as one that cannot be made retrospectively? There was conflicting EAT authority on this point.

The EAT concluded:



  • On the first issue, the EAT held that there was a contract of employment in place from 1 March, notwithstanding that work had yet to be performed under it.

  • On the second issue, the EAT held that the absence was on account of a cessation of work, and could be regarded only as temporary.

  • However, on the third issue, the employment judge was right that an arrangement could not be entered retrospectively so as to confer continuity, and London Probation Board v Kirkpatrick, which had decided the contrary, should no longer be followed by tribunals.

The appeal was allowed.

IMPLICATIONS

Any week in which there is a contract of employment governing the relationship will count towards the period of continuous employment, even if it was only for one of the days of that week. A week is defined as “a week ending with Saturday”.

If an employee terminates his or her employment on a Monday and recommences the following Tuesday, there has not been a gap of the requisite “week ending with Saturday” to break continuity. It is necessary to consider carefully whether or not there was any interval lasting from Sunday to Saturday that did not count towards continuous employment. A contract of employment can exist even where there is no performance.

In this case, the EAT held that an employee’s service under two contracts of employment with the same employer was continuous, even though he did not start work under the second contract until more than a week after the end of the first contract. The EAT found that the second contract of employment had been created when the employee accepted the job offer, which meant that there was not a week’s gap between the two contracts.

However, continuity of employment will begin only on the day on which the employee starts work, not the date on which he or she signs the contract. Section 212(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies only after continuity has begun: it does not affect or change the date on which continuity starts, but only determines what weeks count.

In the particular circumstances of this case, continuity of employment was preserved where a new contract was entered into within the same working week that the previous contract terminated, even where the employee did not commence working under the new contract until a later date.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Clare Gregory, partner, DLA Piper








Practical guidance from XpertHR on continuity of employment



  • What happens to an employee’s continuity of service if he or she is dismissed but reinstated on appeal? The XpertHR FAQs section answers this frequently asked question.

  • Determining continuous employment The XpertHR employment law manual provides guidance on determining continuity of employment.

  • Qualifying periods for statutory rights To qualify for certain statutory rights a person must have been continuously employed for a specified period.

Clare Gregory

Clare Gregory is a partner in the employment team in the Sheffield office of DLA Piper UK.

previous post
What does the Eweida ruling really mean for employers?
next post
OFT to probe workplace pensions market

You may also like

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

‘Polygamous working’ is a minefield for HR

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+