United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to find out whether Mr Mohamed has an arguable point of law in his appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held on 17th December 1996 which dismissed his complaint on unfair dismissal which he had brought against Crown Lodge Management Co. Ltd.

The dispute between the parties centred on the employer's desire to change the terms and conditions of his employment. He worked as a security guard at a prestigious block of flats during the night.

The tribunal found that the proposal to introduce a cleaning schedule into his duties totalling 3½ hours each night involved "a substantial change in the duties of Mr Mohamed's employment".

The employers sought to introduce this change by giving three month's notice of their intention to do so. During the course of the three months, Mr Mohamed's solicitors wrote to the employers pointing out that they had no right to change his terms and conditions without his consent, and that he did not consent to those changes.

The Industrial Tribunal found at paragraph 40 that:

"40 ... At the beginning of May, the requirement to perform the new duties came into effect as part of Mr Mohamed's contractual obligations."

It seems to us to be arguable that the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in their approach to the question at issue. It seems to us that the employers had not dismissed Mr Mohamed as they might have done and offered him a new contract, but they had sought to impose this change upon him by the means of sending him advance notice. It seems to us arguable that as a result of him, through his solicitors, protesting at the changes, the new duties had not become part of his contract as from 1st May. He worked under protest after 1st May as he was entitled to do.

In those circumstances, it seems to us, that there is an arguable point of law here fit for hearing before a full tribunal. We should say to Mr Mohamed that we give no indication one way or the other as to how that argument will be determined at the full hearing.

I am now going to give directions for the hearing of that appeal.

It seems to me that this is a Category C case. It would be an appropriate case for Judge Peter Clark. I would think that it was not likely to take more than half a day. Notes of Evidence are not required. The Notice of Appeal will be deemed to be amended to identify the point referred to in this short judgment.