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 >> Oakley v Gateway Foodmarkets Ltd [1993] UKEAT 543_92_2402 (24 February 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/543_92_2402.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 543_92_2402
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC
MR A FERRY MBE
MR R H PHIPPS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR A C J OAKLEY
(REPRESENTATIVE)
JUDGE HARGROVE OBE QC: On 10 June 1992 it was held by the Tribunal that the Appellant did not have the necessary qualifying period of service. We have heard this morning from Mrs Oakley's husband, who if I may so say has argued the case with great ability and great tenacity.
In relation to this matter there is no problem from 15 January 1990 when she began to work 201/2 hours as a bakery assistant. The problem arises from 15 May of 1989. The position appears to have been that in fact (and as the Tribunal found), the hours she worked were 15 hours, sometimes 151/2. They therefore did not reach the necessary number. However, what Mr Oakley argues is this, that she asked for her contract. Gateway had not provided her with one so she says, or if there had been one it had been lost, and the contract which was supplied during the period of the grievance procedure showed that her position was that of twilight assistant and that her hours were 22.5 per week but there was added to it in manuscript the words "commenced working 22.5 hours on 15.1.91".
I will refer to only one other area which was paragraph 4 of that agreement which says:
"Your normal weekly hours of work are as shown above. The hours and days on which you are required to work are as notified to you by your Manager or posted for your information on the Notice Board."
The interpretations of that contract are of course two-fold. Mr Oakley's interpretation is that this was a contract for 221/2 hours a week. She was only working 15. She was only paid 15 but she was notionally on call for a further period up to 22.5 hours. The Tribunal have taken the view that what was happening here was that there was a contract which she worked a number of hours and was paid just for those hours.
Having listened with great care to Mr Oakley we have reached the conclusion unfortunately, that at this stage there is no arguable case here against the Tribunal's decision and we are therefore obliged with great regret to dismiss the appeal.