United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR S SIDDERS The Cleaning Co-operative 14 Marshalsea Road London SE1 1HL


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: Mr Luguterah, the Applicant, was a student who earned money in a part-time cleaning job. He commenced that work with Eurochange Plc on 23 August 1993, cleaning some of their branch offices. It seems that Eurochange decided to contract out this cleaning work and on 11 December 1995 the contract was given to the Respondent, The Cleaning Co-operative, in circumstances where the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 applied. There was a relevant transfer and the Applicant continued in employment under the Regulations on the same terms and conditions as before.

At the date of transfer three were six cleaning operatives. Within a short time three took voluntary redundancy, leaving only three cleaners to cover the Eurochange branches.

Prior to the transfer, so the London (North) Industrial Tribunal found, the Applicant was required to clean four branches to a specified standard during working hours amounting to 180 hours every four weeks.

Following the transfer the Respondent, through Mr Sidders, required him to clean eight branches during the same working hours, and at the same hourly rate, in which he had previously covered four branches. He was expected to maintain the same standard of cleaning as before.

The Applicant complained to his supervisor. The complaint was that his work was doubled, and his hours and pay remained the same. The complaint was passed on to Mr Sidders who saw the Applicant on 21 December 1995. When the Applicant repeated his complaint, he was suspended without pay. His contract of employment made no provision for suspension without pay. The following day there was a further meeting at which Mr Sidders required the Applicant to sign an undertaking to carry out all of his duties to the best of his abilities. The Applicant declined to do so. He regarded such an undertaking as a blank cheque, on which the Respondent could rewrite his terms and conditions of employment at will.

On 29 December Mr Sidders wrote to the Applicant informing him that he assumed the Applicant had resigned and that his post would not be kept open beyond 7 January 1996.

The Applicant complained to the Tribunal of unfair dismissal and on 18 June 1996 the Tribunal upheld his complaint and awarded him compensation totalling £4,567. Against that decision the Respondent now appeals. Extended reasons for the Tribunal's decision are before us and are dated 20 September 1996.

Mr Sidders appears in person before us. He has been unable to identify any point of law to go forward to a full hearing. His complaint is that the Tribunal accepted the Applicant's evidence as to his previous terms and conditions with Eurochange, in particular by relying on the Eurochange Handbook. That was a matter for the Industrial Tribunal as the fact-finding body. The material findings of fact are contained in paragraph 14 of the reasons and it is not open on appeal to the Respondent to challenge those findings. No evidence was led on behalf of the Respondent from Eurochange as to the terms and conditions of employment which applied to the Applicant's employment before the transfer

In these circumstances we are unable to discern any error of law in the Industrial Tribunal's decision and this appeal must be dismissed.