| The case of Lambrou v Cyprus Airways Ltd [2007], | | | | The employer appealed. |
| concerned an employee who alleged that he was | | | | An issue arose as to whether the employee had |
| constructively unfairly dismissed. The employee was | | | | failed to present a grievance in respect of the |
| employed by Cypriar Tours Ltd ("Cypriar"), which | | | | constructive unfair dismissal as required by the |
| was a subsidiary of the employer. The employee was | | | | Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) |
| employed as a computer operator from the 23rd of | | | | Regulations 2004. |
| January 1989. However, from the 1st of May 2003, | | | | The appeal would be allowed. |
| he also worked for the employer. | | | | It was held that dismissal claims were not subject to |
| In June 2004, all employees were given notice that | | | | the requirement that they went through a grievance |
| within the next three to four months Cypriar would | | | | unless they were for constructive dismissal. What |
| cease trading. The employee, who had not received | | | | was required to be presented as a grievance was |
| his written terms of employment from the employer, | | | | the same complaint as the employee sought to have |
| requested a written contract. | | | | determined before the tribunal. |
| The employer's financial controller informed the | | | | In this case, the very limited basis upon which the |
| accounts manager that the employee would be | | | | claim had been allowed to go forward by the tribunal |
| transferred to its payroll from the 1st of October. On | | | | had been incorrect. The only basis on which the |
| the 27th of September, the employee sent an email | | | | claimant had got through the gateway to a hearing |
| to the general manager, seeking official clarification of | | | | of his constructive unfair dismissal claim was reliance |
| his transfer. Subsequent to learning that his P45 had | | | | upon the emails. The complaint sought to be |
| been issued for inter-company purposes, the | | | | determined before the tribunal was that the |
| employee requested a copy. His request was initially | | | | employer had deemed the employee's contract not |
| refused, however, it was supplied to him on the 24th | | | | to be binding. In the earlier emails there had been |
| of September. | | | | mention of the dispute about the precise terms and |
| On the 30th of September, he sent an email to the | | | | conditions of employment. However, in those earlier |
| general manager and financial controller stating that | | | | emails there had been no indication that the |
| he would be seeking legal advice on account of the | | | | employee regarded his contract as void or that he |
| failure to clarify his terms of employment. After he | | | | would take steps to leave. It followed therefore that |
| sent the e-mail, he did not return to work. He | | | | that was not the same complaint as was presented |
| brought proceedings in the employment tribunal | | | | to the tribunal and thus it had been wrong to allow |
| claiming constructive unfair dismissal. He alleged that | | | | that part of the case to go forward. |
| four matters had caused him to leave. | | | | If you require further information please contact us |
| The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to determine | | | | at or Visit |
| only the claim which had formed in the employee's | | | | © RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does |
| mind when he had decided to leave on the 30th of | | | | not provide a comprehensive or complete statement |
| September. This was the only claim in respect of | | | | of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it |
| which a grievance had been presented in the form of | | | | constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight |
| the emails, namely those based on his terms and | | | | general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be |
| conditions of employment. | | | | sought in relation to particular circumstances. |