United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR P UNDERWOOD (in person)


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by the first respondent company before the Southampton Industrial Tribunal against a decision of that tribunal, promulgated with extended reasons on 7th April 1997, that the applicant, Mr Adams', claims for unfair dismissal and pay in lieu of notice succeeded.

The claims were brought against two respondents, the limited company and a firm, of which Mr Peter Underwood was the principal. The applicant commenced employment with the Company in July 1990 as Sales Manager. In January 1995 he invested £15,000 in the second respondent firm. The business operated by Mr Underwood through the medium of the first and second respondents was that of the sale, service and repair of motor vehicles.

On 11th June 1996 Mr Underwood left the applicant in charge when he took his vacation in France.

On 14th June the applicant discovered that the business had exceeded its lines of credit. He over-reacted, so the Industrial Tribunal found, and instructed the accounts supervisor, Mrs Hutchinson not to issue more cheques, warned the two employed mechanics that they might not get their wages the following week, and indicated that he might remove stock over the weekend in order to protect his investment. In the event the problem was resolved by subsequent car sales; the mechanics were paid ; he did not remove any stock.

However, Mr Underwood was informed by Mrs Hutchinson of what the applicant had said on 15th June in a telephone conversation. Mr Underwood did not immediately return from holiday. He stayed in France until 28th June.

Following his return, he handed the applicant a letter dated 1st July 1996 which read:

"Having spoken to those people involved, taken advice, legal and otherwise, and given the matter as much consideration and soul searching as I can, I have come to the conclusion that I have no alternative but to terminate your employment as from now with payment in lieu of one week's wages.

The action which you took in speaking to my staff and others on Friday June 14 constitutes a breach of trust and misconduct which could have jeopardised the stability of both businesses. Although this in itself is sufficient justification for this action, there are other examples of irrational behaviour which have been noted in recent weeks."

Having considered the evidence, both documentary and oral from the applicant and Mr Underwood, the tribunal rejected much of Mr Underwood's evidence as to the applicant's attitude and competence. It noted that the applicant had never been disciplined prior to his dismissal. It observed that there had been no proper disciplinary procedure followed leading to dismissal, and it concluded that in any event dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to the employer. The dismissal was unfair, Further, the applicant was entitled to six weeks' notice of dismissal; he received only one weeks' pay in lieu. They duly calculated the compensation due for both unfair and wrongful dismissal.

The applicant further claimed in relation to alleged pension contributions deducted from his wages and not paid into a pension scheme on his behalf; that matter was adjourned due to lack of evidence upon which the tribunal felt able to reach a determination.

Against the tribunal's decision the Company (through Mr Underwood) now appeals. This is a preliminary hearing held to determine whether or not the appeal raises any arguable point of law which ought to be considered at a full appeal hearing.

He takes two points. First, that excessive time was taken up by the Industrial Tribunal over the applicant's late claim in relation to pension contributions amounting to some £4.36 per week. As we have observed, that matter was adjourned. We cannot see that it has any bearing on the awards made by the Industrial Tribunal in relation to the other claims.

The second point is that the tribunal gave insufficient consideration to the applicant's misconduct, particularly on 14th June and, says Mr Underwood, his irrational behaviour on a earlier occasions. On the contrary, we think, that that was the focus of the tribunal's enquiry. They decided the issue in favour of the applicant. That was archetypically a question for the industrial jury.

In short, we can discern no point of law raised in this appeal. Accordingly, it must be dismissed.