United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: Miss Barnstable appears in person on the ex parte preliminary procedure because she wishes to pursue an appeal against the British Red Cross Society in these circumstances. She complained to an Industrial Tribunal by an application, received by the Industrial Tribunal on 27 March 1996, that she had been unfairly selected for redundancy. The employer, the British Red Cross Society, entered its appearance on 18 April 1996, denying that she had been unfairly dismissed in any way and claiming there was true redundancy and a proper redundancy exercise.

There was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) on 13 June 1996 where Miss Barnstable appeared in person and a solicitor acted for the Red Cross Society. The decision of the Tribunal was that a claim of unfair dismissal failed. Extended Reasons were given in a decision sent to the parties on 2 July 1996. The decision is model in the way it sets out the Extended Reasons which led to the Tribunal reaching the conclusion in paragraph 7 as follows:

"We have come to the conclusion that the Respondents did not unfairly dismiss the Applicant. There is no doubt that there was a redundancy situation. There is also no doubt that it was the Applicant's job that was made redundant. The question we have to ask was whether the Respondents made sufficient efforts to find the Applicant alternative employment. We find that the Respondents were not creating a new post when they asked the existing post holder Ms Twinley to work the extra hours. They were extending the hours of an existing job. We accept the Respondents' evidence that Ms Twinley performed her duties well whereas they considered the Applicant lacked a welcoming manner. We do not think the Respondents acted unreasonably in failing to give the receptionist job to the Applicant. Had the Applicant not been offered the opportunity of applying for the new job of administration assistant or had she applied but been unsuccessful the Tribunal might have been concerned. However, she herself decided she did not want the job."

There is a further paragraph in which they set out further reasons for dismissing the complaint.

In her helfpul address to us this morning, Miss Barnstable has suggested that there was evidence for the Industrial Tribunal which could have led them to reach other decisions. It is not for us to interfere with findings of fact which could have been made by an Industrial Tribunal on the evidence which they have heard. Miss Barnstable has suggested that there was some procedural impropriety at some stage along the line but this is not mentioned in her Notice of Appeal and is not substantiated in any way by any sort of Affidavit. We would think it wrong at this stage to allow an appeal to go ahead, when unsubstantiated comments of this sort are made. We can see no chance whatsoever on the material before us of this appeal succeeding and therefore, as we must, but not without some sympathy for Miss Barnstable, we dismiss the appeal at this stage.