United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 14_93_1305

Appeal No. EAT/14/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 13th May 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

MR P SMITH

MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

---

MRS M BIRD T/A MAYFAIR NURSING HOME          APPELLANTS

MRS S HONEY          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO ATTENDANCE BY

APPELLANTS


 


MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by way of a preliminary hearing from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Liverpool, under the Chairmanship of Mr Brown who, on the 27th November 1992, awarded the Applicant Mrs Honey, £87.50 under the Wages Act 1986.

Mrs Honey was employed by the Respondent, Mrs Bird, trading as Mayfair Nursing Home, as a nurse but she only stayed for some two days. On her introduction she had been informed of the terms and conditions under which she was to work but she, in fact, had not been served with those terms and conditions.

Under Section 1 of the Wages Act to which the Industrial Tribunal referred themselves, there is, in Section 1(3)(a), a definition of "relevant provision" and it meant, in relation to the contract: in general terms one or more written terms of the contract of which the employer has given the worker a copy on any occasion prior to the employer making the deduction.

Then in paragraph 8, as a question of fact, having directed themselves correctly in law, the Tribunal say:

"The unanimous decision of this Tribunal is that the respondents did not give to the applicant prior to the making the deduction or at all a copy of the terms of conditions of her contract of employment which of course contains the necessary authority for forfeiture of pay in the event of failing to give notice and neither had the applicant previously signified her consent in writing to the making of the deduction."

There is no error of law here. There can only be an appeal to this Tribunal if there is an error of law. That was correct direction of law and a finding of fact. There is no hope in that appeal and it is dismissed.