United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 118_95_2507

Appeal No. EAT/118/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 25 July 1995

HIS HONOUR JUDGE N BUTTER QC

MRS T A MARSLAND

MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

---

DE-VAL-CA (MILFORD HAVEN) LTD          APPELLANTS

MRS J COAKER          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR E V GIBBY


 


JUDGE N BUTTER QC: This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by the employers in respect of a decision reached by the Industrial Tribunal at Carmarthen on 10 November 1994.

The Applicant at the Tribunal, Mrs Coaker, started her employment in November 1989 with De-Val-Ca (Northern) Limited. That Company went into Receivership in 1991, but the Applicant continued to work from the same place; doing the same work and being paid the same wages in the same way, except that her employer was, according to the Tribunal's findings, De-Val-Cal (Milford Haven) Limited.

In July 1992 she was "laid off" (and I underline the words laid off) for a period of time, which the Tribunal say was 10 weeks but we are told, properly and correctly today, is actually 15 weeks, during which period she received no wages but received Unemployment Benefit.

The Tribunal considered that and correctly concluded, on the evidence before them, that this was a temporary cessation of work within the meaning of the relevant part of Schedule 13 the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The Applicant pursued her claim on the basis that she had been unfairly dismissed. It is unnecessary for this Tribunal today to consider the details.

The Tribunal below reviewed the evidence before them, reached the conclusion that she had been unfairly dismissed, but did not find in her favour on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Before this Tribunal today, the employers say that there was an error in relation to the period of 10 weeks as distinct from 15 weeks to which I have already made reference. They have no other substantial point. It is felt by them that, they might have been able to give other evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the question of continuity of employment which was not called and therefore, they feel (in part at least) dissatisfied with the decision.

There is no valid explanation today as to why they could not have given all the evidence they wished and this Tribunal does not permit evidence to be given at a later stage which could have been called at the relevant time, other than in exceptional circumstances.

There is, therefore on the face of it no error of law by the Industrial Tribunal, and we cannot possibly say that they were not entitled to reach the conclusion which they did. In the result, it follows that there is no point in this appeal proceeding and it follows in turn that it must be dismissed.