At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON
MR D G DAVIES CBE
MR P A L PARKER CBE
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
For the Respondents | MR D BROWN (of Counsel) Mr R Lowe EEF Broadway House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NQ |
LORD JOHNSTON: This is the decision of the tribunal in appeal initiated by Mr C Hodgson against HSP Production (Sheffield) Ltd.
There was no appearance for the appellant nor indeed had there been at the preliminary hearing before Judge Peter Clark, who nevertheless brought the matter forward for a full hearing on reasons which are to be found within the bundle stated by him.
Before us Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents to argue that the appeal was without foundation or merit. Essentially upon the ground that on the facts found by the Industrial Tribunal there was no redundancy situation in the context of the employment of the appellant which warranted any remedy.
The facts disclose as found by the tribunal, that the appellant was employed as a profile burner working split shifts on alternative days and nights until April 1995. There was certain amount of flexibility in the work required of the employees in the company, and therefore he did do from time to time other tasks. It emerged that there was a redundancy situation in February 1995 with regard to the employees doing this type of this work and after sundry procedure a number of people were redundant, six on a voluntary basis and two on a compulsory basis.
The tribunal found as a fact that the appellant was not involved in this process, but became involved with his employers as to the nature of his potential duties once it was necessary for the employer to reallocate work left-over, (if that is the right way of putting it), after the redundancies had been effected.
The tribunal find in a slightly conflicting situation that the appellant was offered a chance before other employees to work additional hours and to some extent on extra tasks. It is expressly stated towards the end of the findings that this offer was "freely and of his own volition accepted" by the appellant as a variation in his contract.
The substance of the position argued for on behalf of the respondents was that as regards the appellant's position he was never in a redundancy situation because what was being discussed with him was how to reallocate work that remained for distribution after the redundancy process had been effected. There is no finding that if the appellant had declined the additional tasks being offered to him he would have been dismissed.
On this basis, it was argued that in the absence of any redundancy there is no question of any remedy and even a question arising as to whether there was a dismissal that would give rise to any remedy let alone under Section 84 of the old 1978 Act with regard to what can be described as constructive dismissal during the trial period.
We are entirely satisfied that this argument is correct so far as the matter comes before us, in as much that the questions that it raises and deals with competently and efficiently, relate to questions of fact which the tribunal addressed and with which it is not appropriate for us to interfere. It is plain upon the facts that the tribunal considered that there was no redundancy situation and as a consequence of that did not need to take the matter any further. That approach we must accept at this stage of the process, as correct.
For these simple reasons and in these circumstances the appeal will be dismissed.