[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Rashid v. Asian Community Care Services Ltd [1999] UKEAT 480_99_2107 (21 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/480_99_2107.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 480_99_2107

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR JACOB DEAN (of Counsel) Ms H Patel Law for All Southall Law Shop 37 Hunt Road Southall Middx UB2 4QB


 


JUDGE CLARK: The Appellant, Mrs Rashid, commenced employment with the Respondent on 17 March 1997. On 21 March the parties entered into a contract of employment expressed to be for a period of three months, terminable on 1 weeks notice on either side.

1. On 20 June 1997 she was promoted and given a new three-month contract. In June or July 1997 she discovered that she was pregnant. From 29 September 1997 her employment continued at will, determinable on one week's notice. On 28 January 1998 she wrote to Mr Jeewa, Director of the Centre, informing him of her intention to take maternity leave. Her last day of work was to be 11 February. She indicated an intention to return to work in about six months. On 4 February she wrote again requesting a written agreement providing for her return to work in October 1998.
2. Her last day of work was 11 February. Not having completed two years continuous service for the purposes of section 79 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 she was entitled to the general right of 14 weeks maternity leave under section 71 and to 18 weeks statutory maternity pay. She wrote again on 17 February to Mr Jeewa. Her child was born on 23 March. On 30 March she wrote yet again to Mr Jeewa, no reply having been received to her earlier letters. She wanted written confirmation that she could return to work. Still she received no reply. She wrote further letters on 14 April and 5 May, again without response.
3. On 20 May, her statutory maternity leave expired. The Respondent continued to pay maternity pay until 30 June 1998. She did not return to work. On 10 July the Respondent wrote to the Appellant, enclosing a final payslip and form P45 saying that:

"Unfortunately we will not be renewing your contract."

On 25 September 1998 she presented a complaint of unlawful sex discrimination to the Employment Tribunal.

4. The complaint was heard by an Employment Tribunal sitting at London North on 1 and 2 February 1999. By a decision with Extended Reasons dated 8 February 1999 the Tribunal found:

(1) that the contract ended by the Appellant's repudiation on 21 May 1998, the day after her maternity leave expired,

(2) there was no dismissal by the Respondent. Therefore there was no dismissal by reason of pregnancy. The Appellant had failed to show less favourable treatment on the grounds of her sex. The complaint was dismissed.

(3) in any event, since the effective date of termination of the contract was 21 May 1998, the complaint was out of time.

5. Against that decision, the Appellant now appeals. The grounds of appeal appear to us to be unnecessarily complicated. The real questions raised in the appeal in our view are these:

(1) was the Tribunal wrong to find that the contract was terminated by the Appellant on 21 May, rather than by dismissal by the Respondent on 10 July 1998.

(2) if she was dismissed on 10 July, then

(a) the claim was presented within time and

(b) was that dismissal discriminatory on the grounds of her sex? Some assistance on this question may be gained from Halfpenny v IGE Medical Systems Ltd [1999] IRLR 177 per Ward LJ paragraphs 35-41.

6. It is on those questions only that we shall allow the appeal to proceed to a full appeal hearing. For that purpose we direct the case be listed for half a day, Category B and there will be exchange of Skeleton Arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those Skeleton Arguments to be lodged with this Tribunal at the same time.