Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lawrence v The National Grid Plc [1996] UKEAT 753_96_1511 (15 November 1996)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/753_96_1511.html
Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 753_96_1511
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MR L D COWAN
MR J D DALY
MR G C LAWRENCE APPELLANT
THE NATIONAL GRID PLC RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
JUDGE PUGSLEY: This is a case which comes before us pursuant to the Practice Direction as to whether there is a point of law that merits the attention of the full Tribunal. We have read the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting in Birmingham, which dismissed the application and gave in its Extended Reasons for so doing. The conclusion of that decision reads as follows:
"14 We ask ourselves was that a dismissal? It was not. Was he forced into a situation where he had no alternative? The answer to that having heard the applicant's reply about redundancy where he said "I have no argument against being redundant", it was quite clear to us there was no forcing here. His complaint, if any, is he was left in a state of limbo where he earned money for doing nothing. No one was forcing him to go anywhere. Nevertheless he elected. We do not think he was forced into the position.
15 In those circumstances we hold that the applicant was not dismissed. It follows therefore that given he was not dismissed, this application must be dismissed."
That conclusion was reached by the Tribunal having analysed the factual situation which pertained. The Applicant was employed by Powergen, and for a considerable period of time because there was a no compulsory redundancy policy, he was being paid but was not required to do any work because the ????? was in a transitional stage and there was no work for him to do. It was his case that the company knew there was no real job for him and that he was "set-up" for a compulsory redundancy when a move to Coventry was arranged. In that the company knew that that would lead to a redundancy. The Tribunal rejected that argument having heard Dr Winter. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant elected to receive a redundancy payment which was much more generous than the statutory scheme.
We do not intend to go into an elaborate analysis of the issues that arise in distinguishing whether it was a dismissal and a mutual termination of the contract. The Tribunal had the issues before them. There is no error of law that we can see and recognise in the Notice of Appeal as being reflected in anything said by the Tribunal in its decision.
The Appellant has not appeared to assist us. We do not refer this matter to a full Tribunal, since there is no issue which we can see can properly be ventilated as being an error of law. The position is that the Tribunal made the robust finding of fact that there was no way in which the Appellant had been coerced into taking any action. However that may be put as a matter of legal analysis, in the light of those findings this is an appeal with no prospect of success.