United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 195_95_0706

Appeal No. EAT/195/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 7 June 1995

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUCKER

MR D G DAVIES

MR K YOUNG CBE

---

MR R J JEFFERSON          APPELLANT

MEDICAL INSURANCE AGENCY LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF           APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE TUCKER: This is a Preliminary Hearing ex parte of an employee's appeal against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Nottingham on 21 December 1994, dismissing the Appellant's application for compensation on the grounds of breach of contract and unfair dismissal. The Appellant has requested through his solicitors, that the matter initially be considered on documentary evidence alone and that we propose to do.

The Appellant was employed as Branch Assistant by the Respondents, Medical Insurance Agency Ltd from 1 February until 22 August 1994. The Respondents agreed that they dismissed the Appellant but contend that this was because of his poor work performance and failure to improve. The reasons advanced by the Appellant in support of his complaint were set out in his originating application. They amount to the fact that the Respondents failed to give adequate warnings, failed to give the Appellant the opportunity to exercise the grievance procedure and that they summarily dismissed him. The Appellant admits having received verbal warnings but alleges that because of failure to give any written warning and of the immediate nature of his dismissal, he was denied recourse to the established grievance procedure; thereby constituting a breach of the terms of his contract.

The Respondents denied that the Appellant was immediately dismissed or that he was denied his right to the grievance procedure. They contended that he was dismissed on 25 July and given four weeks notice, which he was not required to work. They admitted that the Appellant received no written warning but denied that he suffered any loss as a consequence. The application was heard by the Chairman sitting alone. The Appellant appeared in person. It appears from the Chairman's reasons that the Chairman took great pains to explain the legal position to the Appellant and why it was that he, the Chairman, was unable to award any compensation. We agree with the Chairman's conclusions. The Appellant was, in our view, given proper notice. He received wages for the period of that notice. We fail to see where any breach of contract occurred, such as would give rise to a claim for compensation.

In his Notice of Appeal, complaint is made that the Chairman did not consider the claim or the substantive issues in the case. It is contended that a ruling should have been made as to whether or not the Appellant was wrongfully dismissed. It seems to us to be implicit in the Chairman's reasons what his ruling was. We note that when the Chairman asked the Applicant what his solicitors had advised him that he should be asking for, the Appellant suggested that the solicitors were saying `see what you can get' because of the `change in the law' that has taken place. It seems to us that that is a flimsy reason for appearing before the Industrial Tribunal and the grounds of appeal are flimsier still. There is nothing in this appeal. We are not proposing to allow it to go forward for a full hearing. We dismiss the appeal.