Chelmsford College Corporation v Teal

A clear resignation takes effect according to the ordinary meaning of its terms. It cannot be unilaterally withdrawn, although the employer may consent to its withdrawal. The special-circumstances principle does not create a right of unilateral retraction; it concerns cases where the circumstances may show that the notice was never truly intended.

Where an effective resignation is withdrawn by consent, the employment continues and is not converted into fresh employment. Continuity is therefore preserved under section 212(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Time for an unfair-dismissal claim runs from a later resignation which terminates the continuing employment.

Mrs Teal, a fixed-term lecturer, resigned with immediate effect on 30 November 2009 after a dispute about unpaid overtime. The College treated the letter as a grievance, stated that it could not accept the resignation until the grievance had been considered, and subsequently agreed that she could rescind it. She returned to work, but resigned again on 12 February 2010 after a further grievance was rejected.

The Employment Judge held that the first resignation was conditional or had been withdrawn and that the unfair-dismissal claim was in time. The College appealed, arguing that the first resignation ended the employment and that the claim was out of time. The central issue was whether the first resignation had been effectively withdrawn by consent.

1. Appeal dismissed. The effective date of termination was 12 February 2010, when the second resignation was accepted. The unfair-dismissal claim was therefore presented in time.
2. The resignation of 30 November 2009 was clear, unqualified and effective according to its ordinary meaning. The Employment Judge erred in describing it as a conditional resignation. Mrs Teal had stopped work and did not return until January 2010.
3. Applying CF Capital plc v Willoughby [2011] IRLR 985, a resignation cannot be unilaterally withdrawn; withdrawal requires the employer’s consent. The special-circumstances cases do not permit unilateral retraction. They concern whether, in an appropriate case, the notice was truly intended.
4. The College’s letter of 2 December 2009 stated that it could not accept the resignation until the grievance hearing. Its letter of 16 December expressly allowed Mrs Teal to rescind the resignation, and she acknowledged the College’s agreement. The first resignation was therefore withdrawn by consent.
5. Because the resignation was withdrawn by consent, it was never effective as a termination of the employment. The contract of employment continued, so section 212(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied. There was no need to determine the alternative argument under section 212(3)(c), or whether an arrangement could operate retrospectively.
6. The Employment Protection (Continuity of Employment) Regulations 1996 were irrelevant to the decision.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal and held that the claim was in time, with termination occurring on 12 February 2010.
• Employment Tribunal: held that Mrs Teal had sufficient continuity of employment and that her claim was in time relative to 12 February 2010.