What were the basic facts?
Mr Prakash started work on 1 November 2001 for Wolverhampton City Council on a three year fixed term contract, but was dismissed on 23 October 2003 following allegations of bullying and sexual harassment. He lodged a claim for unfair dismissal on 15 January 2004.
Mr Prakash also appealed internally against the dismissal, which was finally heard on 3 February 2005. His appeal was allowed and he was told that he would be reinstated.
He then received a letter on 9 February telling him that he would be re-engaged in a suitable post and his details placed on the redeployment register for six months. He did not apply for any jobs on the register and his name was removed from it on 10 October.
In June 2005, the council lodged an amended response to his unfair dismissal claim arguing that, as his appeal had been successful, his dismissal took effect on 31 October 2004. Mr Prakash applied to amend his claim that his contract ended later than 23 October 2003.
What did the tribunal decide?
Relying on the decision in West Midlands Co-operative Society -v- Tipton (1986, 1 All ER 513), the tribunal decided that “a successful domestic appeal reinstates a person to employment under the terms of the contract of employment under which they were originally employed, … This … effectively puts an employee in a position where there was no dismissal."
Having removed the sanction of dismissal, the tribunal said that “what must be reinstated is the initial contract between the parties.” In this case, a fixed term contract.
There was nothing in the behaviour of the parties to conclude that the contract of employment had been “extended backward in time” by the decision to reinstate him. The effective date of determination of the revived contract was, therefore, 31 October 2004.
Mr Prakash’s complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore nine months premature. It could not hear his complaint nor allow him to amend his application to submit a later date for his claim of unfair dismissal.
What did the parties argue on appeal?
Mr Prakash argued that, as his appeal had been successful, his contract had been extended, at least to the date of the appeal hearing. It provided a “bridge” between the original date of termination (October 2003) and the appeal date hearing. The effective date of determination was six months later – 9 August 2005; or, alternatively 10 October 2005 when his name was removed from the register.
The council, on the other hand, said that the successful appeal did no more than put Mr Prakash in the position he would have been in but for the overturned dismissal. In other words, it just restored him to his original fixed term contract.
What did the EAT decide?
And the EAT agreed with the council. It said that the logic of Mr Prakash’s argument meant that his fixed term contract would be extended beyond its due date. That would put him in a better position than someone who had received a lesser penalty, or someone on a fixed term contract whose appeal was heard during their contract.
It would also mean that claimants would be entitled, as a result of their successful appeal, to arrears of salary, pension benefits, and the right to claim unfair dismissal. Instead, reinstatement should just mean “putting the claimant back into the position he was in at the time of dismissal, not extending his contractual rights beyond that.”
However, the really interesting part of the case is that the EAT said that the tribunal was wrong not to allow Mr Prakash to amend his original claim form. It said there was no reason why a cause of action that had accrued after presentation of the original claim form could not be added as an amendment later.