Clause 10.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO TERMINATION OF CONTRACT WITHOUT NOTICE OR WITH SHORT NOTICE.) (Hansard, 21 July 1965)

§ Mr. Thornton
I beg to move Amendment No. 27, Clause 10, in page 9, line 26, to leave out from "any" to "takes" in line 31 and to insert: such time as is mentioned in the next following subsection, an employee who—

(a) has been given notice by his employer to terminate his contract of employment, or

(b) has given notice to his employer under subsection (1) of section (Right to redundancy payment by reason of lay-off or short-time) of this Act".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to consider at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 28 and 29.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King)
If the House so pleases.

§ Mr. Thornton
These Amendments are intended to put right an inconsistency in the Bill. Clause 10 protects the rights of a worker who, after he has been given notice by his employer, is, during the period of that notice, dismissed either for going on strike or for misconduct. The Clause provides that, in these eventualities, the worker may appeal to the tribunal, which may award him the whole or part of the redundancy payment otherwise due, or no payment at all. The difficulty is that, as the Clause stands, the provisions apply at any time after the worker has been given notice, including not only the notice he is entitled to under his contract but any additional period of notice which the employer may give ex gratia. If, for instance, the worker was entitled under his contract to four weeks' notice but his employer chose ex gratia to give him 12 weeks' notice, the provisions would apply throughout the 12-week period.
1728 This contrasts with the position under Clause 4, which protects the rights of the worker who has been given notice by his employer but leaves, say, to get another job before that notice has expired. In this case, the Clause is specifically applied only to the obligatory period of notice, which is defined in Clause 4(5) and means, in effect, the period of notice which the employer is required to give under the contract.
Returning to the example I have given of an employer who gives 12 weeks' notice, of which eight weeks is ex gratia, we now have a discrepancy which it seems obviously right to eliminate. The worker who left to get another job during the first eight weeks of the notice period could have no right to a redundancy payment because Clause 4 would not apply during the ex gratia period; but the worker dismissed for misconduct or for going on strike during those eight weeks would have his rights protected under Clause 10.
Clearly, the answer is that the provisions of Clause 10 should apply only during the obligatory period of notice as defined in Clause 4(5), and this is what the Amendments would secure.