United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR J PINDER (Representative) Citizens Advice Bureau Acorn House 361 Midsummer Boulevard Central Milton Keynes MK9 3HP


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing has been to determine whether there are arguable points of law in Mr Masiak's appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Bedford on 1 May 1997. He made various complaints against his former employers, City Centre Restaurants (UK) Ltd, including a complaint of unfair dismissal, a complaint under the Employment Rights Act 1996 relating to unauthorised deduction of wages and a complaint in relation to breach of contract.

The Tribunal's decision on the first issue was that because Mr Masiak had not been continuously employed for the requisite period he did not have a legitimate complaint of unfair dismissal. In relation to his third claim, that is in relation to breach of contract, they concluded that his claim was not competent because he did not have two months' continuous employment and therefore, under the statute was not entitled to a minimum period of notice. In relation to the remaining claim, unauthorised reduction of wages, that was withdrawn before the Tribunal.

There are, as it seems to us, two distinctly arguable points in this case. The first relates to the breach of contract claim. Mr Pinder says, on behalf of the Applicant, that an employee at common law is entitled to a reasonable period of notice from the commencement of his employment contract, even if he does not serve the requisite minimum period to trigger his entitlement to a statutory minimum period of notice. We consider that point to be arguable.

The second relates to the contention that was made, that Mr Masiak was dismissed for an improper reason, namely a Health and Safety at Work reason. Shortly, Mr Pinder contends on behalf of Mr Masiak, that the reason why he left his employment was because he was being required, as he saw it, to prepare for consumption by the public at the restaurant semi-frozen chicken, which in his judgment would have caused, or would have been likely to have caused a health risk to the consumers. The question at issue, as it seems to us, is whether the Tribunal were correct in their conclusion that the Safety at Work provisions does not encompass members of the public, as opposed to fellow-employees and others then at the place of work. That is an arguable point and on those two points there will be a full hearing.

We do not consider that the Notice of Appeal requires amendment. We would list this as a category B case. We will give an estimate of the length of time of half an hour for the Appellant's case, half an hour for the Respondent's case and half an hour for the court's consideration and judgment. Notes of Evidence are not required.