Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Johnson v Health & Safety Executive [1991] UKEAT 600_90_2811 (28 November 1991)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/600_90_2811.html
Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 600_90_2811
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUCKER
MR J P M BELL CBE
MS P SMITH
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant Appellant in Person
MR JUSTICE TUCKER: This is an employee's Appeal against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London North on 10,11 and 21 September 1990 whereby they held that the Appellant's complaint of unfair dismissal failed. The Appellant seeks to appeal on grounds that the Tribunal erred in law in a number of respects,
The Appellant made a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. He claimed that pressure was put on him to resign and that on 20 September 1987 he did so. He asserted that he was obliged to resign in protest at his employer's attitude in issuing instructions which he regarded as unlawful because work people were being exposed to dangerous practices. The hearing before the Tribunal took three days. The Tribunal reached their decision after a submission on behalf of the Respondent that there was no case to answer. They set out their reasons. They stated their view that to succeed in a complaint of constructive dismissal an applicant has to show two things:
(1)that the employer is in significant breach of the contract of employment
(2)that the applicant resigned because of that breach.
The Tribunal assumed in the Appellant's favour though without deciding the matter, that the first of those factors had been established. They found that the Appellant's case failed because he did not establish the second of those factors, for two reasons. First, that there was no dismissal - the contract was terminated by mutual consent, and second, the necessary chain of causation between the alleged breach and the leaving was broken by the early retirement agreement. They found that the Appellant did not leave because of the alleged breach.
The Appellant has set out in a document annexed to his Notice of Appeal the grounds on which he seeks to appeal and there are nine of them set out in some detail. It seems to us that all those grounds for Appeal go to the first of the reasons advanced by the Tribunal for their decision. There is no reference to the second reason, that is to say the break in the chain of causation. The Appellant does not, in his Notice of Appeal address that issue at all. Nevertheless we have tried to bring the Appellant's attention to this point and have invited him more than once to address us upon it, but we regret to say that he does not seem able to grasp this point sufficiently, or to show us any reason why the Tribunal went wrong on this point. He seems anxious to advance a crusade against his former employers and to ventilate his grievances.
The Appellant took early retirement and he accepted compensation of over £26,000 with a further lump sum of over £12,000 and a pension of £4,000 pa payable at the age of 60. He is now aged 52. If we may say so he is an intelligent and articulate man. He has a degree in law. We have given him every indulgence. I hope he will agree of this that he has had his say. He has cited authorities to us but he is quite unable in our view to advance any valid argument why the Tribunal was wrong in the view that they took on the one point to which we have invited argument. He has told us that he felt constrained to leave and that he had no option but to do so. He has submitted that he did what he believed to be right.
We have every sympathy with the Appellant if his objective was to seek to draw attention to the safety of people at work and if that was so it was courageous of him to take the stand he did. If he had simply resigned in protest at what he saw to be wrong, then depending on whether he could substantiate the facts (and as to that we have no means of knowing, and make no finding or observation) then he might have had a claim before an Industrial Tribunal. But his difficulty stems from his acceptance of early retirement which the Tribunal felt, and with which we agree, prevents him from seeking further redress in the Industrial Tribunals.
We regret therefore that we cannot allow this Appeal to go forward to a full hearing and we must dismiss it.