United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE J HICKS QC: Mrs Bridger, the Respondent to this appeal, was employed by the Appellants, GCH 2000 Ltd, as a secretary. She worked, as the Tribunal found, part-time, with 16 hours per week guaranteed at £3.37 per hour, and the arrangement was that she worked those hours during term time and took the school holidays off and that when she worked over 16 hours in a week she was entitled to overtime.

On 21 October 1996 she was told that there was no work available for her in the final week of October, so she did not go in, but of course by the provision for 16 hours guaranteed she was entitled to be paid for those 16 hours. She returned at the beginning of November and was told that she was being made redundant as from 29 November. The Industrial Tribunal found that the employment terminated on 29 November. Her claim was for redundancy payment and for unpaid wages, namely 15.2 hours overtime and the last week of October, to which I have already referred as being one where she would be entitled to payment, although not in attendance.

The Tribunal accepted all of those claims and awarded her £105.14 for the unauthorised deductions, that is to say the unpaid overtime in the last week of October. The Tribunal found that she was dismissed for redundancy and, having been employed for four years was entitled to six weeks' pay. They calculated the weekly pay at £53.82 (which seems, in fact, to be a slight error to Mrs Bridger's detriment because 16 hours at £3.37 is in fact £53.92) and therefore on their calculations awarded her the sum of £322.92 redundancy pay, being six weeks at £53.82.

The Appellant employers are not present or represented and we therefore deal with the matter on the basis of their Notice of Appeal, in which they first allege that they did not guarantee the Respondents 16 hours per week. That is a pure question of fact which the Industrial Tribunal found against them and does not raise any conceivable point of law.

The same is true of the second point, namely their allegation that the rate of pay was not £3.37 per hour but £3.65 and those, although they are slightly elaborated and documents are referred to, are the only points raised in the Notice of Appeal. Therefore there is no arguable ground on which the appeal could succeed and we dismiss it.