In 2020, Ms Korpysa was told that because of the COVID lockdown, her workplace would be closing. She thought that meant that she was being dismissed, and asked her employer, Impact Recruitment Services Limited, for details of her contract, accrued holiday pay entitlement and (said Impact) her P45. Impact took that as meaning that she was resigning, and based on that belief it processed steps to take her off the payroll and send her the P45 it said she had requested. She in turn took that as confirmation of her assumed dismissal, even though that was not Impact’s intention, and started unfair dismissal proceedings.
In what must have been one of those is-one-coffee-enough mornings, the Employment Tribunal was therefore faced with deciding the rights and wrongs of a termination of Korpysa’s employment caused by neither party giving notice but each believing that the other had.
Having determined that Korpysa had not in fact asked for her P45, the ET concluded relatively quickly that Impact’s sending it to her did constitute a dismissal effective from that date. The next step in assessing the statutory fairness of that dismissal was then to look at the reason for it. Was it one of the permitted reasons in section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996, because if not, Impact was surely sunk. Korpysa argued that her employer could not possibly rely on any of those statutory reasons because logically you could not claim to have had a reason for something you did not think you were doing....
The Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago filed a lawsuit last month alleging that a group of conspirators engaged in a racketeering scheme to defraud the archdiocese by falsely claiming priest sexual a...