Hussain v Acorn Independent College Ltd

For continuity of employment, the reason for terminating the first contract is the relevant inquiry when deciding whether an interval between contracts resulted from a temporary cessation of work. The court must consider the effective cause of the absence, rather than the parties’ expectation of further work or the form of the contracts. In educational employment, a predictable interval between teaching engagements may qualify where the work temporarily ceases. A short and temporary interval may therefore count under section 212(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The claimant worked under a temporary contract covering an absent teacher from 25 April 2008 until 8 July 2008. He later agreed a permanent teaching contract beginning on 5 September 2008. That contract ended in dismissal on 12 June 2009.

The Employment Judge held that the summer interval did not count towards continuity of employment and dismissed the unfair-dismissal claim for want of one year’s service. The appeal concerned whether the interval was a temporary cessation of work under section 212(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Appeal allowed. The claimant had sufficient continuity of employment to bring an unfair-dismissal claim. His employment began on 25 April 2008.

1. The relevant question under section 212(3)(b) is the reason for termination of the first contract and the effective cause of the ensuing absence.

2. The form of the contracts on either side of the interval is immaterial. It is unnecessary to examine whether the employee expected further work.

3. The reasoning in Ford v Warwickshire County Council applied. In teaching employment, predictable academic holidays may constitute a temporary cessation of work, even where the absence of work was foreseeable.

4. The interval was short and temporary. The work covering the absent teacher had ceased when the relevant classes ended, and teaching resumed in September under the second contract. Section 212(3)(b) was therefore satisfied.

5. The Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine whether the claimant possessed the qualifying service required by section 108.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal from the Employment Judge’s decision of 5 February 2010 and substituted a finding that the claimant had sufficient continuity of employment.