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 >> Myers v British Railways Board [1992] UKEAT 309_91_0309 (3 September 1992)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/309_91_0309.html
Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 309_91_0309, [1992] UKEAT 309_91_309
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MS S CORBY
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant APPELLANT IN PERSON
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): Mr Myers was employed by the British Railways Board, who were the Respondents to an Originating Application which he issued on the 23rd June 1990. He claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed by them and that he had been dismissed whilst on leave; that he was due some wages, including some holiday pay; and that there was some failure by British Rail to give accurate information and that their decision to dismiss him was unfair. He asked for re-instatement.
This is a somewhat unhappy case because Mr Myers, who has represented himself before us and has done so very competently if we may say so, had been employed as a Guard from 1979 onwards and then in January 1989 had begun training as a driver. He passed the first module, failed the second module and was withdrawn from training. He spoke to his line Manager and was granted a fortnight's annual leave until the 7th April 1990.
His case before the Tribunal was that he was entitled to a backlog of leave which would have allowed him to extend his leave until the 24th May; that he had asked for it in the letter of 13th March, to which he received no reply, and therefore, when ultimately, by a letter of 18th May, he was dismissed it was unfair because he was still entitled to days of leave beyond that, until the 24th May. The task therefore before the Industrial Tribunal was to sort out the facts and what had happened during that period from the end of March 1990 until that letter was sent on the 18th May and there was a conflict of evidence between Mr Myers and the witnesses from British Rail. There were two witnesses recorded a Mr Baker, the Area Train Crew Manager and Mrs Johnson, the Area Personnel Officer. Those issues were issues of fact. We stress that for this reason, that an appeal to this Tribunal is only permitted on a point of law and unless there is an error of law there is no ground upon which we can give any remedy on appeal to this Tribunal.
The case for the Railway was that Mr Myers had been granted leave only until the 7th April and that he was therefore absent without leave thereafter. Having seen and heard the witnesses and having looked at a number of documents, many of which are also before us, the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of its Decision found as follows.
"The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was disappointed when he failed driver training and clearly bore a grievance against the training staff at Waterloo. He was clearly upset when he reported to Mr Baker, the Area Train Crew Manager on 12 March and asked to take some leave in order that he could have time to sort out his future. He was granted two weeks' leave by Mr Baker and this was subsequently extended at the applicant's request by Mr Baker's assistant for a further two weeks expiring on 7 April."
One of the points made by Mr Myers to us today on this appeal is that that last sentence about the extension of time until the 7th April was just not true, however, there must have been some evidence about that and the Tribunal made its finding. So the Tribunal then went on to consider what had happened after the 7th April. They found that in fact there had been a communication between Mr Baker and Mr Myers; they found although Mr Myers denies the second appointment that there had been two appointments to meet Mr Baker both of which Mr Myers failed to keep; and they also found that his pay was stopped and that he had not complained thereafter.
Mrs Johnson, the Area Personnel Officer, wrote a letter of the 10th May in which Mr Myers was warned that an explanation was required. He did not provide that and ultimately the letter of the 18th May was sent. The letter accepted a repudiation by his failing to turn up for work after his leave had terminated on the 7th April. We fully appreciate that Mr Myers was disappointed with his situation. We fully appreciate that his version of the facts was different from that which was found by the Tribunal and that he feels strongly about it. We are also conscious that he has other matters of disagreement or complaint with British Rail about the actual amount of his pay. However, so far as his claim in these proceedings before the Tribunal were concerned, what has happened is the Tribunal have found the facts against and that is something over which we are unable to help him.
There is one final matter and that is that Mr Myers raised the question of the disciplinary procedures. It is apparent from the last paragraph of the Decision that the Tribunal looked at that matter and considered it because they give some advice about future procedure to British Rail. In so far as there is any claim that the British Railways Board has not paid Mr Myers enough, in other words that there is a breach of contract, that is not a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and we suggest that Mr Myers should consult his trade union about that if he is still a member or seek help elsewhere.
In the circumstances, therefore, we find ourselves quite unable to help Mr Myers because there is no error of law on the face of this Decision and this appeal must be dismissed at this stage.