United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 860_93_1502

Appeal No. EAT/860/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 15th February 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC

MISS J W COLLERSON

MR P DAWSON OBE

---

MR D PURDHAM          APPELLANT

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: Mr Purdham has put in a notice of appeal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held in Manchester on 30 July 1993, when the Tribunal unanimously decided that the Respondents, Lancashire County Council, had not made unauthorised deductions within the meaning of the Wages Act 1986 and they therefore dismissed the Applicant's complaint.

The appeal turns on clause 11(c) of the Conditions of Service referred to as "the Purple Book" in paragraph 3 of the Full Reasons of the Tribunal below. Paragraph 4 reads:

"On appointment or promotion to the post within his existing authority which carries a higher maximum salary than his previous grade, or on the regrading of an existing post based on increased duties and responsibilities, an officer shall be paid a salary in accordance with the new grade which is at least one spinal column point in excess of the salary he would have received on the old grade on the day of appointment, promotion or regrading."

The Tribunal below held that "one point in excess" meant just that and that the Appellant could be given more than one point in excess if there was a regrading, but he did not have to be given more than one point. Mr Purdham has put several contentions before us. His main contention is that commonly where has been a regrading against which the employee has appealed, then on that appeal, the employee has been given a promotion within the regrading and more than one spinal column point has been given. That means that there are two regradings and therefore the employee is entitled to be given two spinal column points. As that has happened in the past, it should have happened to him.

We say about that two things: first of all, there was no evidence, as we understand it, before the Tribunal that that did happen but even so, if that did happen, the fact that someone is given more than one spinal column point does not mean that they have to be given more than one spinal column point having regard to the terms of clause 11(c) which I have read out. It says "at least one spinal column point". It may be that others have got more than one spinal column point but in this position there is only one appointment or promotion. There is within the appeal procedure provision for something to be done if the employee is not happy about the promotion or appointment which has been made but when that is adjusted following an appeal it remains one appointment or promotion which the authority makes. That construction is consistent with the construction of the Industrial Tribunal below and in the circumstances we cannot see that there is anything which can lead the Appellant to succeed if this appeal went forward.

In the circumstances while understanding that Mr Purdham's disappointment at what happened, we think there is no point of law to go forward and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.