United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1256_94_1501

Appeal No. EAT/1256/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 15 January 1996

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SMITH

LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP

MISS C HOLROYD

---

MR L N NWIDOBIE           APPELLANT

(1) BLACKPOOL & FYLDE COLLEGE

(2) DR G COWELL          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY

OR REPRESENTATION

ON BEHALF OF

THE APPELLANT


 


MRS JUSTICE SMITH: This is an appeal from the reserved decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting in Manchester, delivered on 15 November 1994. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had not been unfairly dismissed, had not been unfairly selected for redundancy and that the Respondents had not discriminated against him on the ground of his race.

The Appellant had been employed by the Respondents as one of three Assistant Catering Managers, from 1988 until his dismissal in January 1994. As an Assistant Catering Manager, he was on salary Scale 3. In 1992 the Respondents wished to reorganise the department in which the Appellant worked and they sought to appoint him as a Quality Assurance Co-Ordinator, a job for which he was well qualified. The other two Assistant Catering Managers were, under the reorganisation, to be described as Area Managers and were to do the work previously done by the three Assistant Catering Managers.

The Appellant accepted the new job upon condition that he should be re-graded. He commenced his duties. The senior management body to whom the proposals were referred agreed that the reorganisation should take place, but did not accept the proposed re-grading of the salaries. On learning that, the Appellant applied personally for the re-grading of his salary. In that application he was supported by his departmental manager.

After much difficulty, a job description for the Appellant's new position was established and the new job was re-graded at grade 4, one grade above his old salary grade. The Appellant, who had applied for re-grading at grades 5 or 6, refused to accept the new position at grade 4 although he had fulfilled the duties by that time for about a year. He asked to be re-deployed. The Respondents attempted to find alternative employment for him but nothing was available. This was explained to him.

The Respondents then tried to persuade the Appellant to accept the new position, but he was adamant in his refusal. He was told that the Respondents would have no alternative but to dismiss him. He maintained his refusal and he was dismissed with effect from 7 January 1994. He did not appeal against that dismissal.

Following the two-day hearing the Industrial Tribunal delivered a very careful reserved decision. They found that all three complaints were unfounded. The Notice of Appeal seeks a decision on two supposed points of law:

"(1) That my post was that of Quality Assurance Co-Ordinator and not Assistant Catering Officer;

(2) That there was a redundancy, hence I was dismissed."

As drafted, it appears to us that the Notice of Appeal does not disclose any point of law for the consideration of this Appeal Tribunal.

The Appellant has not attended upon this preliminary hearing. A letter has been received from Solicitors whom he had previously instructed, indicating to the Appeal Tribunal that they no longer have instructions from the Appellant. The Appellant has received an invitation to attend this hearing in person but has not responded. In his absence we have not, of course, had the benefit of argument. However, we have considered the decision very carefully and have asked ourselves whether any other ground of appeal could properly be advanced in support of an appeal.

We think that this decision is beyond criticism and in those circumstances we have come to the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed at this stage.