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 >> Finlake Leisure Ltd v Parker [1993] UKEAT 757_92_0403 (4 March 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/757_92_0403.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 757_92_403, [1993] UKEAT 757_92_0403
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE QC
MR J R CROSBY
MR J D DALY
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR W J DIAMOND
(Personnel Consultant)
Peninsula Business Services
Stamford House
361/365 Chapel Street
Manchester
M3 5JY
JUDGE HARGROVE QC: Mr Parker joined the Appellants in 1991. There was no dispute that he was to receive £15,000 per annum, plus a car and all-found accommodation. With the exception of the last term, that was what he was receiving with his previous employers. Very long hours were involved, some 90 hours per week were worked. Mr Parker's account was, according to the Tribunal, that he was to receive a £5,000 tax free bonus at the end of the season.
In September 1991 Mr Parker requested a written contract and raised the question of the bonus. He was, he said, told that the bonus would be paid at the end of the financial year. The Appellant here, the Respondent below, said that this was quite wrong, that there was no £5,000 bonus, particularly not a tax free bonus.
Mr Diamond who has urged this before us with very considerable skill today, he has taken every possible proper point, has listed before us a number of matters which the Tribunal ought to have taken into account and disbelieved that story, for example: that it was put before the Tribunal that the Chairman had promised this sum to the Respondent here, so to speak, "sight unseen" before he had been interviewed. It was something of a secret agreement that it was not any way attached to performance, and the whole thing was implausible. There may well be something in what Mr Diamond has so ably put before us, but all those matters were before the Tribunal. It appears, that the employers here, made a very bad impression upon the Tribunal and the Tribunal took that into account. Mr Diamond says that it was an excessive weighting of the evidence against his client and other factors should have caused the Tribunal to take another view. He invites us to say that we take the view of this aspect "Oh my goodness, that must be wrong". I regret to say that is not the view of any member of this Tribunal.
The second point arises in relation to the fact that from the date when the sum was not paid, until the date when there was an application, is beyond the three month limit. The Tribunal dealt with this by forming the view, that there had been a variation of the contract in this sense: instead of receiving the bonus at the end of the season he was to receive it at the end of the financial year. The argument here was that it was unilateral decision by the employers not to pay and therefore it does not come within the heading of variation. It seems to us that the Tribunal were justified in taking the view upon the facts that the contract had been so varied in that there had been conduct on the part of Mr Parker acquiescing in, and accepting the new term, namely that he would receive his money at the end of the financial year.
In all the circumstances the arguments urged before us have no chance of success they rely principally upon matters of fact, matters of fact are not for this Tribunal.
In those circumstances no further steps should be taken in this appeal.