In London Probation Board v Kirkpatrick, the EAT holds that the tribunal was correct to conclude that it is open to the parties to agree reinstatement as a matter of contract. Such an agreement, albeit made after the break in employment has taken place, fills in the gap for the purposes of computing the period of continuous employment, under s.212 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In Curr v Marks & Spencer plc the Court of Appeal holds that an employee who took a four-year break from work under her employer's "child-break scheme", after which she was re-engaged, had not been absent from work in circumstances such that "by arrangement she was regarded as continuing in the employment" during that break when no contract of employment subsisted.
In Curr v Marks & Spencer plc, the EAT holds that an employee who took a four-year break from work under her employer's "child-break scheme", after which she was re-engaged, was to be regarded as continuing in employment "by arrangement" during that period when no contract of employment subsisted.
In determining the question of continuity of employment for statutory employment protection purposes, employment tribunals need only examine each relevant week (that is, a week ending on a Saturday) to ascertain whether or not during any part of it an employee was working under a contract of employment for the employer against whom a claim is brought, holds the EAT in Sweeney v J & S Henderson (Concessions) Ltd.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.