United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Mr David Nadin wishes to appeal against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Manchester on 7 and 8 November 1996, when a Tribunal had two applications before it. One was from Mrs M.A. Heaton and the other from him. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal sent to the parties on 5 December 1996, was that the Applicants were not unfairly dismissed by the Respondents and there was a further order so far as concerns his co-applicant.

The reason for Mr Nadin's wish to appeal is expressed in a letter sent to this Tribunal by an Employment Rights adviser, which was received by this Tribunal on 16 January 1997. It reads as follows:

"Mr Nadin was an Area Manager with Nynex at the time of his dismissal. There were vacancies for Area Managers within the organisation at the time of his dismissal. The company chose to divide the country into two halves, North and South. Mr Nadin's area was given to another person and he was declared redundant. There were 2 vacancies in the Southern Region.

It is claimed by Mr Nadin that the Tribunal's findings in his case were perverse and also wrong in law. There were suitable alternative jobs that existed for which he could have been appointed. There was not a redundancy situation in terms of Area Managers at the time of his dismissal.

It is for these two reasons that Mr Nadin wishes to appeal."

We have carefully looked at the decision and we see that the Tribunal looked into a redundancy exercise carried out by the Respondents at a time when there was a redundancy situation, which they found did apply in the circumstances. Having regard to the investigations that they made, they reached a decision which they were entitled to reach. They found that the redundancy situation was properly investigated by the Respondents and that both Applicants were given adequate opportunity to question their respective interviewer; they further found that the procedures followed by the company employer were fair.

In these circumstances, what Mr Nadin wishes to appeal against is findings of fact from findings which, in our judgment, the Industrial Tribunal was entitled to reach for reasons given in the Decision.

A further point arises on this appeal which is this. Mr Naylor wished to represent Mr Nadin on the ex-parte hearing, but he wrote to the Tribunal saying he was unable to attend today because he had a different appointment before another Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal was unwilling to change the date to suit Mr Naylor's convenience. It must be understood that this Tribunal has to organise its lists so appeals can be listed and heard at the earliest possible opportunity.

If an applicant wishes to be represented by a consultant in a firm where there are others who can represent him, there cannot usually be an adjustment to the date proposed for a hearing because of the particular difficulties of the person handling the case. Of course, there can be exceptions to this practice, but nothing was put forward to show why this hearing should not take place today.

We see nothing either in fact or in law for this appeal to go ahead. In the circumstances, we will dismiss it at this stage.