Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Employment lawCase lawDismissal

Pacitti Jones v O’Brien

by Personnel Today 1 Jan 2006
by Personnel Today 1 Jan 2006


Pacitti Jones v O’Brien

The Court of Session confirms that the dates on which employment starts and ends must be counted when calculating continuous service for the purposes of an unfair dismissal claim.

Ms O’Brien started work for Pacitti Jones on 8 April 2002. She was given one week’s written notice by a letter posted by hand to her home on 27 March 2003 (while she was away on holiday) which she did not receive until Monday 31 March 2003.

O’Brien brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The tribunal decided that O’Brien did not have one year’s continuity of employment and so could not bring her claim. It considered that O’Brien’s period of notice had begun on Friday 28 March 2003 and had expired on Thursday 3 April 2003.

The EAT overturned the decision and stated that the start date of the notice period was 1 April 2003 and the end date was 7 April 2003, meaning O’Brien’s claim was admissible.

Pacitti Jones appealed to the Court of Session arguing that one year’s continuous service would not be accrued until 8 April 2003. The Court of Session disagreed, holding that section 211(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 expressly states that the first day of work and the effective date of termination must be included in the calculation and on that basis, O’Brien had a year’s continuous service and her claim was in time.

Key points

Both the first and last date of employment must be counted when calculating continuous employment.

Notice will begin to run when the employee knows that they are going to be dismissed, not from the date on which the letter terminating the employment is delivered at their address (McMaster v Manchester Airport plc).

What you should do



  • The method of calculating time periods for bringing and responding to employment claims varies. Always check the relevant provisions first and do not make assumptions
  • Take care when considering dismissing an employee shortly before the date on which they have one year’s continuous service (and therefore acquire unfair dismissal rights)
  • Include a notice provision in the contract of employment, stating when notice of termination under the contract is deemed to have been served.

Avatar
Personnel Today

previous post
Female mechanic sues Network Rail for sex discrimination
next post
Hutton pushes case for incapacity benefit reform

You may also like

Christian doctor loses transgender pronoun case, but beliefs...

29 Jun 2022

Long Covid: what tribunal’s disability ruling means for...

23 Jun 2022

Oxford study highlights best gig economy firms to...

9 Jun 2022

Tesco appeal against fire and rehire ban to...

8 Jun 2022

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

5 Jun 2022

Frewer v Google: How it’s getting harder to...

30 May 2022

P&O Ferries boss denies reputational damage after mass...

27 May 2022

Employers lack data to make IR35 worker status...

25 May 2022

Maternity leave: Cost of living crisis highlights need...

25 May 2022

One in five employers planning ‘no jab no...

19 May 2022
  • NSPCC revamps its learning strategy with child wellbeing at its heart PROMOTED | The NSPCC’s mission is to prevent abuse and neglect...Read more
  • Diversity versus inclusion: Why the difference matters PROMOTED | It’s possible for an environment to be diverse, but not inclusive...Read more
  • Five steps for organisations across the globe to become more skills-driven PROMOTED | The shift in the world of work has been felt across the globe...Read more
  • The future of workforce development PROMOTED | Northumbria University and partners share insight...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 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+