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 >> United Provincial Services Ltd (t/a Pennine Blue Bus Copmpany) v Roberts [1994] UKEAT 842_93_0302 (3 February 1994)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/842_93_0302.html
Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 842_93_302, [1994] UKEAT 842_93_0302
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WATERHOUSE
MR E HAMMOND OBE
MISS E WHITTINGHAM
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
MR JUSTICE WATERHOUSE: In this case the Appellant employers seek to appeal against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Manchester on 14 October 1992. The decision of the Tribunal was promulgated on 13 November 1992 and was to the effect that the employee's complaint brought under the provisions of the Wages Act 1986 was well-founded. The Tribunal went on to order the employers to pay the employee a sum of £55.18 in respect of unauthorized deductions, together with a further sum of £768 less the appropriate rates of Income Tax and National Insurance contributions in respect of other unauthorized deductions.
The Appellants wish to argue, as the basis of their proposed appeal, that they were not the employer of the Respondent employee at any relevant time.
The history of the matter is that the Originating Application was directed, first of all, to the Pennine Blue Bus Company but that the proceedings were later amended to give the employers' name as United Provincial Services Limited, trading as Pennine Blue Bus Company. The case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on a number of occasions but on each occasion the Appellants failed to appear. Although the papers before the Tribunal are somewhat confusing, it appears that originally there was a hearing on 29 April 1992. The Respondent employee appeared as Applicant and the Tribunal treated the contents of the Appellants' notice of appearance as their written representation. Having considered the matter, the Tribunal found against the employers. A letter was then sent by the Appellants to the Regional Office of Industrial Tribunals requesting a review and seeking to take the point that they were not the employers of the Respondent. That letter was signed by two Directors. Arrangements were made eventually for a review to be held at the Regional Office of Industrial Tribunals on 24 August 1992. Again, there was no appearance again by the Appellants. Contact was made with their Directors and a further date was filed for the hearing of the review, namely, 14 October 1992. The day before that fixed date, a message was received at the Regional Office indicating that the Appellants' responsible director was ill. An adjournment was refused unless an appropriate medical certificate was produced. No such certificate was presented within the time specified or thereafter and, accordingly, the Tribunal went ahead with the review in the absence of the Appellants.
The decision of the Tribunal on 14 October 1992, promulgated on 13 November 1992, was to confirm the previous finding in favour of the Respondent employee. No adequate explanation has ever been proffered for the failure of the Appellants to appear at the various hearings that have been listed and to present a proper case. The Appeal now presented by notice of appeal dated 14 December 1992 is put forward on a purported point of law to the effect that they were not represented at the Tribunal, so that certain facts were not available to the Tribunal, which the Appellants feel would have proved their case. That is not, of course, a point of law. It relates wholly to the evidence before the Tribunal. No criticism is made of the decision of the Tribunal to hear the Respondent's Originating Application on the occasions to which we have referred. In the absence of any arguable criticism of these successive decisions by the Tribunal in the exercise of their discretion, there can be no basis upon which an appeal to this Tribunal could succeed.
We must, therefore, reject the Appeal and in doing so we have taken into account a letter received from the solicitors acting for the Appellants, dated 1 February 1994, in which this Appeal Tribunal is requested to deal with the Appeal on the basis of the papers before it, rather than with any additional assistance. The point made in that letter is simply the point, made before but not supported by any evidence, that the Appellants never employed the Respondent, who was, according to the letter, employed at all relevant times by an individual called Fred Bailey, who had chosen to trade under the name United Painting Services and who had ceased to trade shortly after the employee Respondent filed his application. The Appeal is therefore dismissed.