Drage v Governors of Greenford High School [2000] IRLR 314

In any case of dismissal it is crucial to work out the "effective date of termination" as that is the date from which time runs in calculating Employment Tribunal time limits for lodging claims. Generally speaking the date will be the last day worked and it is safest to work from this date. But sometimes the date can be later. Mr Drage had exercised his right to appeal against a disciplinary finding of dismissal and lodged his claim to the Tribunal more than three months after his dismissal but less than three months after his appeal was unsuccessful. Which was the effective date of termination of his employment?

The Court of Appeal considered that where there is contractual provision for an internal appeal against an employer's decision to dismiss an employee, the critical question is whether during the period between the initial notification of dismissal and the outcome of the appeal an employee is:

(a) dismissed with the possibility of reinstatement, or
(b) suspended with the possibility of the proposed dismissal not being confirmed.

Mr Drage was a teacher who was suspended on full pay pending a disciplinary hearing.

On 17 February 1996 he was notified of a finding that he was guilty of gross misconduct and should therefore be dismissed.

His contract provided for an opportunity to appeal against the staff committee's decision "before any action is taken to implement it." He exercised his right of appeal and on 13 March 1996 was told of the decision of the appeals panel to dismiss him with immediate effect. He also received a letter from the clerk to the governing body confirming that his employment would terminate on 13 March 1996.

In deciding which was the "effective date of termination" the Court considered that the initial letter of dismissal must be considered in its contractual context.

Mr Drage had also continued to receive full pay up until his appeal was dismissed, which suggested his continuing suspension from duty pending the result of his appeal.

Therefore the effective date of termination was 13 March 1996 when he was told of the decision to dismiss after his appeal.

His unfair dismissal claim was therefore allowed to proceed. The case is helpful where advisers and applicants fear they may have missed a time limit. But had Mr Drage lodged his claim within three months of 17 February 1996, it would not have taken him four years to establish his right to have his case of unfair dismissal heard by a Tribunal.