Leaving a fixed-term contract early with good cause, without proving constructive dismissal: Charichelon v Greaves

On a fixed-term contract, leaving early has a price. In Charichelon v Greaves, an employer sued a former employee for half the wages for the rest of her term. The Court of Appeal was not satisfied that she had been constructively dismissed, but held that she had a good and sufficient cause to leave, so she owed nothing.

Facts

Greaves was employed as a make-up artist in April 2010 on a four-year fixed-term contract. In December 2012 she resigned, stating that she had to leave because of constructive dismissal. The employer sued her before the Court of Magistrates for €6,407, half the wages she would have earned for the rest of the term, which the law makes payable by an employee who abandons a fixed-term contract early.

She described long shifts with short breaks, difficulty obtaining leave, high sales targets and a stressful atmosphere, and produced a psychiatrist’s certificate that her condition was related to her working environment and that she had been advised to change jobs. A plea that the Industrial Tribunal alone had jurisdiction was rejected. In 2016 the Court of Magistrates found that she had left because of constructive dismissal and rejected the employer’s claim.

The appeal

The Court of Appeal took a different view of constructive dismissal. Applying the contract test, it held that she had to show a breach of contract by the employer; unreasonable conduct alone would not do. It was not convinced her complaints were sufficiently proved. There was no evidence that she had complained to her superiors about hours, leave or targets. Her appraisals and emails during the last year described her enjoyment of the job and thanked management for its support, and she had accepted a promotion in 2012.

Her defence, however, was wider than constructive dismissal. She had pleaded that she had valid and sufficient reasons in law not to continue, which is the statutory test for leaving without paying the half wages. The Court referred to its own earlier decision in Cavendish Hotels v Beck, that good and sufficient cause covers facts and conduct that undermine the trust on which the employment relationship rests, assessed in the concrete circumstances of the relationship.

On that test she succeeded. The psychiatrist’s diagnosis and advice had not been contradicted, and the workplace was one of pressure, with demanding targets confirmed by a former colleague. It was evident that for reasons of health she could not continue. There was no proof that she had told the employer about her health, but the Court noted her uncontested account of how the employer reacted when she gave notice, which suggested it would have made little difference. The appeal was rejected, with costs against the employer.

Significance

The case shows the two routes available to an employee who leaves early. Constructive dismissal requires a breach by the employer and is usually pursued by the employee as a claim. Good and sufficient cause is a defence to the employer’s claim for half the wages on a fixed-term contract, and can succeed on facts that fall short of a breach. For employers, a claim against a departing fixed-term employee is not automatic; for employees, medical evidence and a record of the working conditions can decide it.

Related: Constructive dismissal in Malta · Good and sufficient cause · Veselji v St Andrew’s Football Club · Notice and exit terms