Howard v Campbell's Caravans Ltd

For a retirement dismissal, the operative termination date is determined by what was communicated between the parties. Subsequent payroll records or a P45 do not, by themselves, establish an earlier termination date.

A statutory retirement notification must identify the intended retirement date. Although the notification should generally contain the essential information without requiring the employee to consult extraneous documents, wording must be read in context and as a whole. The word “after” may, in appropriate colloquial usage, mean “on”. A notification referring to retirement after an employee’s 65th birthday therefore identified the birthday as the retirement date where the surrounding wording made that meaning clear.

The appellant was employed as a technician by the respondent, whose normal retirement age was 65. He reached that age on 12 November 2008. A letter sent on 22 May 2008 stated that his employment would cease after his 65th birthday and referred to his right to request continued employment.

After a later request for an extension, the respondent notified him on 30 October that his last working day would be 14 November. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination. The appellant appealed, challenging the termination date and the adequacy of the retirement notification.

The central issues were whether retirement was the reason for dismissal and whether the respondent had complied with the statutory notification requirements.

1. Appeal dismissed. The dismissal was fairly made by reason of retirement and did not constitute unlawful age discrimination.
2. The operative date of termination depended on communication between the parties. The appellant was unequivocally told by the letter of 30 October that dismissal took effect on 14 November. Being taken off the payroll on 7 November and the subsequent P45 stating that date did not alter the communicated termination date.
3. Kirklees Metropolitan Council v Radecki [2009] ICR 1244 did not govern the case. It concerned particular facts, including prior notification that the employee would be taken off the payroll and knowledge shortly afterwards that payment had ceased. Those features were absent here. The Tribunal also noted the ordinary principle that termination must be communicated.
4. Under section 98ZD of the Employment Rights Act 1996, retirement was the reason for dismissal. The statutory notification sent in May was too late to satisfy paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 but was capable of satisfying the continuing notification duty in paragraph 4.
5. The notification should generally be self-contained and should give the employee the essential information without requiring a paper trail through other documents. Nevertheless, the May letter, read as a whole, specified 12 November as the intended retirement date. Its references to the employee’s 65th birthday, working after reaching 65, and “the retirement date above” made that meaning clear. The word “after” could, in context, mean “on”. The later fact that retirement occurred two days afterwards did not invalidate the notification.
6. Since the notification identified a date, there was no breach of paragraph 4 of Schedule 6. The requirements concerning consideration of an extension request were also met. The dismissal was therefore fair under section 98ZG, and regulation 30 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 excluded age-discrimination liability.

• Employment Tribunal, Manchester: By judgment and reasons sent on 29 June 2010, dismissed the claims for age discrimination and unfair dismissal on the merits. The breach of contract claim was dismissed as out of time, though that aspect was subsequently reviewed successfully and was no longer live.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Dismissed the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the unfair-dismissal and age-discrimination claims.