United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1163_95_2003

Appeal No. EAT/1163/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 20th March 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE N BUTTER Q.C.

MR P DAWSON OBE

MISS C HOLROYD

---

MRS D McCLEARY          APPELLANT

McKEAG & COMPANY          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE           APPELLANT


 


JUDGE BUTTER Q.C.: This is the preliminary hearing on an appeal by Mrs McCleary in respect of a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at Newcastle. The hearing was on 6th and 7th February, and 6th and 7th March 1995.

The unanimous decision of the tribunal below was that the applicant had not been dismissed within the meaning of Section 55 of the 1978 Act and was not entitled to a finding that she had been unfairly dismissed under Section 54(1) of the same Act.

The background to the case is outlined in the extended reasons. The applicant had been employed as a personal assistant to a Mr Peter Armstrong, the Chief Executive and head of domestic conveyancing department. Her work was highly regarded and she was able to do much of her work with a minimum of supervision.

In their extended reasons the tribunal set out the terms and conditions of the employment and go on to deal with the facts in a fair degree of detail.

In paragraph 5 they deal with the question of constructive dismissal and in paragraph 6 go on to determine the terms of the applicant's contract.

In paragraph 7 they indicate that they were satisfied that for a period of some considerable months the respondents office was not supervised to the minimum standards required by the Law Societies Practice Rules, and were satisfied that there was an implied term concerning that supervision and that there was a breach of it by the respondents.

However, in paragraph 8 they go on to say:

"the matter does not end there in that it is necessary that the applicant should show us that it was the breach which has taken place that caused her to leave."

In paragraph 13 having reviewed the evidence, they say:

"We are therefore not satisfied that the applicant resigned in response to the breach of the implied term that had occurred. She resigned because she wanted to be paid more than another employee doing similar work believing her own value to be the greater."

They concluded that there was a resignation in circumstances which did not amount to a constructive dismissal.

In the letter of 6th June 1995 which is treated as the Notice of Appeal. Mrs McCleary sets out a number of complaints in which she maintains among other things that witnesses told lies.

There is however no material before us to show us that there has been any error of law on the part of the tribunal below or that they reached a decision to which they were not entitled to come. In all the circumstances there is, on the face of it, no substance to this appeal. It would be unrealistic for the matter to proceed further forward. In all the circumstances the appeal is dismissed. This is our unanimous decision.