Resignation templates toolkit

Fentem v Outform EMEA Ltd (2022)

Facts: An employee resigned in April 2019 with a nine-month notice period, set to end in January 2020. The employer invoked a payment in lieu of notice (PILON) clause in December 2019, terminating employment a month early and paying the full salary.

Outcome: The Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled that invoking the PILON clause did not constitute a dismissal. This decision was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), even though there were concerns about the reliance on previous case law.

Key Takeaway: Employers can invoke PILON clauses without it being considered a dismissal, but the wording of such clauses must be clear to avoid breach of contract claims.

Omar v Epping Forest District Citizens Advice (2020)

Facts: During an altercation, an employee resigned in the heat of the moment and reiterated this resignation later the same day. When he attempted to withdraw his resignation, the employer did not accept, treating it as final.

Outcome: The Employment Tribunal found that the resignation was genuine and that the employee had opportunities to withdraw it but did not. The EAT confirmed this decision, stating that once a resignation is given, it cannot be unilaterally retracted without the employer's agreement.

Key Takeaway: Employers should handle "heat of the moment" resignations cautiously, ensuring clear communication and documentation. An employee's intention to resign should be assessed based on a reasonable bystander’s perspective.

East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust v Levy (2018)

Facts: The claimant, Mrs. Levy, handed in a letter stating her intention to transfer to another department, which was interpreted as a resignation by her employer.

Outcome: The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that Mrs. Levy's letter was not an unequivocal resignation. The case was remitted back to the Employment Tribunal.

Key Takeaway: Employers should carefully interpret resignation communications, particularly where the intention is ambiguous. Clear and unequivocal resignation statements are necessary for them to be valid.

Robert S Rae v Wellhead Electrical Supplies Limited (2020)

Facts: Mr. Rae, a director at Wellhead Electrical Supplies, had a heated exchange over salary increases and, in the heat of the moment, appeared to resign. He later attempted to retract his resignation, but the company refused.

Outcome: The tribunal ruled in favour of Mr. Rae, concluding that his resignation was made under stress and not in a rational state of mind.

Key Takeaway: Resignations made in the heat of the moment or under significant stress may not be legally binding. Employers should consider the context and the employee's state of mind before accepting such resignations.