35 years of local government service: why a one-month job didn't count for unfair dismissal
A senior financial assistant with 35 years' service in local government was told she lacked the two-year continuity needed for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim after just one month with a new council. The tribunal dismissed her argument that her contract preserved her previous service.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #continuity-of-service
- #local-government
- #modification-order
- #contract-term
- #pre-contractual-communications
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent for just over one month, from 18 April 2022 to 20 May 2022.
- The claimant had previously worked for Cheshire West and Chester Council from 7 July 1986 to 17 April 2022.
- The claimant's contract of employment included a clause (paragraph 2) that incorporated NJC provisions on continuous service for certain entitlements.
- The Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment in Local Government etc) (Modification) Order 1999 only applies to redundancy, not unfair dismissal.
- The claimant's pre-contractual emails expressing an intention to preserve continuity did not create a contractual term.
Timeline
-
Started employment at Cheshire West and Chester Council
Claimant began working as a senior financial assistant.
-
Applied for Town Clerk role
Claimant applied for the position of Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer with the respondent.
-
Interview
Claimant attended an interview for the role.
-
Accepted offer by email
Claimant accepted the job offer by email.
-
Formal offer letter sent
Respondent sent a formal offer letter with contract of employment.
-
Signed acceptance
Claimant signed acceptance of the appointment and contract, returning it by email.
-
Started employment with respondent
Claimant commenced employment as Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment was terminated by letter sent by email.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claimant presented a claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge S Moore held a preliminary hearing to determine continuity of service for ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant had two years' continuous employment to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, given that she had worked for a different local authority for 35 years before a one-month stint with the respondent. The key question was whether her contract or the Modification Order extended her continuity for unfair dismissal purposes.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
- The contract clause (paragraph 2) incorporated NJC provisions that only preserved continuity for annual leave, sick pay, and maternity schemes—not for unfair dismissal.
- The Redundancy Payments (Continuity of Employment in Local Government etc) (Modification) Order 1999 applies only to redundancy, not unfair dismissal.
- Pre-contractual emails expressing an intention to preserve continuity did not create a contractual term.
The claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA (which has no qualifying service requirement) will proceed to a full hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check whether a continuity clause in your contract covers unfair dismissal claims—it may only apply to benefits like annual leave or sick pay.
- Pre-contractual discussions about preserving continuity do not create binding terms unless they are reflected in the written contract.
- The Modification Order for local government continuity only applies to redundancy, not to unfair dismissal claims.
- If you have less than two years' service with a new employer, you cannot bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim unless a specific legal provision preserves your earlier service.
A lifetime of service, a one-month gap
The claimant had worked for Cheshire West and Chester Council for 35 years. In April 2022, she moved to a new role as Town Clerk with Connah’s Quay Town Council. She was careful to ensure there was no break in her local government service, starting her new job just one day after leaving her old one. But after only a month, her employment was terminated. She wanted to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim—but to do that, she needed two years' continuous service with the respondent.
Why the contract didn't help
The claimant argued that paragraph 2 of her contract, which said her service with other public employers would be 'considered as part of a continuous period of employment', preserved her 35 years of service for all purposes. But the tribunal looked at the NJC agreement that the clause referred to. That agreement only preserved continuity for annual leave, occupational sick pay, and maternity schemes—not for unfair dismissal. The tribunal also rejected the argument that the Redundancy Payments Modification Order could help, as it only applies to redundancy claims.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant had sent emails before starting the job saying she wanted to preserve her continuity of service. The tribunal accepted she genuinely believed this would happen. But those emails were not reflected in the written contract. If she had asked for an express term in her contract stating that her previous service counted for unfair dismissal purposes, the outcome might have been different.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that continuity of service is not automatic when moving between public sector employers. Even where a contract mentions continuous service, the scope of that clause depends on the precise wording. For employees with long service who move to a new role, it is essential to check whether the contract preserves continuity for all statutory rights—or only for contractual benefits. The claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim (which does not require two years' service) will still go ahead, but the ordinary unfair dismissal claim cannot proceed.
Similar cases
Ethical veganism claim fails: care home bank worker lacked continuity for unfair dismissal
A tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim from a care home bank worker who refused the COVID-19 vaccine citing veganism, ruling she lacked continuity of service and her belief was not a protected characteristic.
Redundancy dismissal timed just before 55th birthday: unfair dismissal over pension loss
An Arrears and Investigations Manager with 19 years' service was unfairly dismissed when Slough Borough Council failed to consult properly and timed her redundancy 17 days before her 55th birthday, costing her pension access. Tribunal awarded £60,625.84.
Whistleblowing claim fails after retirement break breaks continuity of service
A Service Delivery Manager who alleged she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her claim after the tribunal found her retirement break broke her continuity of service, meaning she lacked the two years' qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.