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 >> Connaughton v Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council [1994] UKEAT 245_94_2705 (27 May 1994)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/245_94_2705.html
Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 245_94_2705
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON
MRS M L BOYLE
MR J H GALBRAITH CB
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant THE APPELLANT IN
PERSON
MR JUSTICE MORISON: This is a prospective appeal brought by Mr Connaughton against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal following a four day hearing in November 1993, which was entered in the Register on the 1 December 1993. The background facts to the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, against which this is an appeal, are complicated and do not need to be set out in full in this judgment.
Broadly speaking, the problem arises in this way. In 1990 there was a reorganisation of the Leisure Department of the Trafford Borough Council owing to the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering. Mr Connaughton had been employed by the local authority. He started his appointment on the 13 March 1979 and he was deputy, in effect, in charge of the Sale Leisure Centre, which he regards as the flagship of the various Sports Centres within the control of the Trafford Borough Council.
In connection with the restructuring consequent on compulsory competitive tendering, various people were allocated to new posts without there being any apparent competition and various people in the grade below them, were asked to express an interest in the various posts which would then be on offer. In 1990 Mr Connaughton indicated to his employers that he wished to take the post of Assistant Sports Centre Manager, at the Sale Sports Centre, which effectively would have been roughly the position that he currently held, although it was now given a new title and perhaps even a new grade.
He believed that by doing so he was showing loyalty to the Centre in which he was working. He also believed that by doing so, he was sacrificing the opportunity that he might have had to have applied for what would have been promotion at another Sports Centre. The reason why he was doing that was because he felt committed to the Sale Sports Centre, not least because he had shortly before that time bought a house and was living adjacent to it. He was then offered that position, that is Assistant Sports Centre Manage at the Sale Sports Centre, but was asked by his employers to sign a new contract. He believed that a new contract was not required since in effect he was remaining employed by the same employer doing roughly the same job.
As a result of unsatisfactory discussions between himself and his employers, he was removed from his position as Assistant Sports Centre Manager and indeed he was dismissed by the Council as at the 16 October 1990. For reasons best known to themselves, the Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council originally took the position that they had not dismissed Mr Connaughton when it would appear that they plainly had. As a result of what had happened Mr Connaughton applied to an Industrial Tribunal, chaired by Mr Scott, for a declaration that he had been unfairly dismissed and for the remedy of reinstatement.
It is the order that was made by that Tribunal, which has led to the difficulty in this case. The order that was made was for re-engagement and the relevant part of the order is that Mr Connaughton was to be re-engaged in the category of employment of Assistant Manager (Leisure Centre) as created in the restructured establishment of June 1990, or any comparable post. There is a dispute which arose consequent on that order for re-engagement. It was Mr Connaughton's recollection and impression that Mr Scott made that order for re-engagement as opposed to an order for reinstatement because the job title which he had held, had disappeared as a result of the restructuring. He therefore believed that it was the intention of the learned Chairman to have ordered re-engagement in that position, that is as Assistant Sports Centre Manager at the Sale Sports Centre, although the wording of the order as it was finally drawn up including such a position at any of the authorities leisure centres. He was sure, in his own mind, that in fact, that was what the learned Chairman had in mind, namely that he should go to the Sale Sports Centre.
That view, which Mr Connaughton held and holds today has persisted and as a result, and I leave out any other matter, eventually the matter came before the Industrial Tribunal in November 1993 where the question was raised as to what was the proper interpretation of the order made by the Scott Tribunal. The problem was that Mr Scott himself had retired due to ill health and therefore the matter came on before a differently constituted Tribunal. They considered the matter and after the four day hearing concluded that the contention that the Scott Tribunal intended, that the applicant, Mr Connaughton, should only go to the Sale Sports Centre could not be sustained.
He believed that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal was in error, essentially because he takes the view that the way the Trafford Borough Council have behaved in denying his dismissal as they did before the original Tribunal hearing, then admitting it in due time and saying that the original denial was due to somebody ticking the wrong box, is incredible evidence which the Tribunal should have rejected. Secondly, because in effect the Council misled the Tribunal as to the availability of the post at the time when his re-engagement was being considered.
Both those matters were raised at the Industrial Tribunal and dealt with in their decision. Subsequently Mr Connaughton then applied for a review and pressed on them the points which he has succinctly and modestly argued before us. The Industrial Tribunal considered his application for a review and rejected it in what can only be described as somewhat robust terms.
I have to say that if we had been able to find a point of law in this case it would have given me, personally, pleasure to have done so, because I am concerned that Mr Connaughton should still feel aggrieved, despite the fact that there have been these previous Industrial Tribunal proceedings which have considered his claims.
However, having looked at all the material I am satisfied, as are my colleagues, that there is nothing that we are able to see in the papers before us, which leads us to believe that there is an arguable point of law. If there is no arguable point of law then by allowing this case to proceed we would be extending the period of strain under which Mr Connaughton has been working for some time. It would, I think, in a way, be unfair to him to lead him to believe that any such appeal would have any prospect of success at all. In our view, it has none, simply because it does not raise any point of law and accordingly, for the reasons which I have attempted to give, we must reject this appeal and therefore the appeal will not go forward to a full hearing but will be dismissed.