United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by Mr Lewis against a decision of the Birmingham Industrial Tribunal sitting on 5th February 1996 that he was not unfairly dismissed by his former employers, the respondent. Extended reasons for that decision are dated 15th May 1996.

The appellant has indicated that he does not intend to be present at this preliminary hearing, and has not appeared today. The preliminary hearing is held to determine whether or not the Notice of Appeal discloses any arguable point or points of law to go to a full appeal hearing. We have therefore proceeded to consider this case on the papers.

The appellant was a long-standing employee of some 29 years with the respondent, which was in the business of trailer-rental. Prior to 1991 the respondent operated as five regional companies. In that year the companies merged and gradually the number of depots nation-wide was reduced to two by 1995, the Coventry depot at which the appellant was employed as a trailer rental operator and the Manchester deport. Ultimately it was decided to close the Coventry depot and operate only from the Manchester site. The appellant, and all other employees at Coventry, were given notice of redundancy.

The issues before the Industrial Tribunal were whether the appellant had been unfairly selected for redundancy; whether in fact his job was redundant and whether he had been victimised by his management. Overall, if the reason for dismissal was redundancy, whether the respondent acted reasonably in treating that reason as a sufficient reason for dismissal.

The tribunal found, on the evidence, that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. The operation at Coventry was expected to close. That brought the reason for dismissal within the definition of redundancy then contained in s.81(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 in that the employer intended to cease carrying on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed him in the place where he was so employed. The employment terminated on 19th May 1995; the Coventry depot was eventually closed on 1st September 1995.

The tribunal further found that the dismissal was fair. It found that the respondent had made all reasonable efforts to find the appellant alternative employment. He had been offered, and had rejected, a drivers job on the same terms as before, and relocation to Manchester. Overall, concluded the Industrial Tribunal, the employer acted reasonably.

Finally, the tribunal rejected the appellant's allegations of victimisation and harassment; particularly by his manager, Mr Fearn. In any event, the tribunal found that those allegations were irrelevant to the issues in the case before them.

In support of the appeal, and in the absence of either oral or written representations by or on behalf of the appellant, we have only the grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal. We repeat them verbatim:

"That this hearing was not a fair or equal hearing. That I was denied the opportunity for use of 2 witnesses. Although EXEL NFC used theirs and due to misleading evidence case was judged on what happened 8 months later and also evidence was withheld by NFC."

In the absence of further explanation for those grounds of appeal, we are driven to conclude that no arguable point of law is there raised. Accordingly this appeal must be dismissed.