United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR J HARVEY (Representative)


 


MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mrs Butt against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at London (North) following a hearing on 20th April and 1st May 1997.

Mrs Butt had made an application asserting that she was a victim of race discrimination and also that she had been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal did not accept either of those assertions and her application was dismissed.

She has been capably represented before us by Mr Harvey. It is apparent both from Mrs Butt's letter setting out her grounds of appeal, and the submissions made by Mr Harvey, that she confines her appeal to the question of unfair dismissal and makes no submissions in relation to the finding in relation to race discrimination.

Mrs Butt worked for London Borough of Ealing at Villiers High School. She was one of a number of staff whose contracts were funded by Central Government pursuant to s.11 of the Local Government Act 1966. In 1992 the Home Office introduced new guidelines for s.11 funding. Those guidelines required that organisations seeking s.11 grants had to organise themselves to bid for such funding from the Home Office every three years.

Mrs Butt had originally been employed from 13th April 1989, initially on a mainstream funded contract as an administrative assistant working exclusively at Villiers High School. In 1992 there was pressure on the funding for administration posts and she was persuaded to transfer to a s.11 funded contract working three days a week at Villiers and two days at Tudor First and Middle Schools. She was a competent, trustworthy and reliable employee.

In December 1994 she received first notice of potential redundancy and later notice of termination from 31st March 1995. The Industrial Tribunal found that there had been consultation throughout between the London Borough of Ealing and the unions and that Mrs Butt had had the benefit of individual consultation with a number of the management. The Industrial Tribunal found that consultation to have been reasonable.

It was clear to the Industrial Tribunal that there had been a dismissal with an effective date of termination of 31st March 1995. The tribunal found that the reason for the dismissal was redundancy; and they went on to find as follows:

"... There was a redundancy situation because the requirement for administrative staff on section 11 funded projects had ceased or diminished. The Applicant complained that the procedure for selection for redundancy involved the use of subjective selection criteria as the main test for selection namely performance in an interview. The criteria were agreed with the union and the success rate on the redeployment process was in excess of 50%. The Applicant further complained that consultation was not genuine. We find that it certainly was and not only was the whole process carried out in conjunction with the union but the Respondent did what it could to encourage the Applicant to make more use of the facilities offered. ..."

The Industrial Tribunal concluded that the respondent had acted reasonably in treating Mrs Butt's redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissing her.

In making his submissions today, Mr Harvey has concentrated on the fact that Mrs Butt was persuaded to change to a s.11 contract in March 1992. The essence of his submission is that there was unfairness if and to the extent that she was put in a less advantageous position as a result. Also, it is said and was accepted by the tribunal, that she had received assurances from the Chairman of the Governors, Mr Hothi, albeit only after she had signed up to the new agreement in 1992.

We can well understand why Mrs Butt feels now to have been disadvantaged by that sequence of events. It is not for us to speculate what would have happened to Mrs Butt and her job had she not transferred to that agreement in 1992.

The issue before the Industrial Tribunal, having found that there was a dismissal by reason of redundancy, was to consider the fairness or unfairness of that dismissal in the circumstances which arose in 1995. The Industrial Tribunal was entirely satisfied that the procedures were fair and reasonable.

Appeals to this Appeal Tribunal lie only on points of law, and we have come to the unanimous conclusion that there is no arguable point of law with any prospect of success which would enable this appeal to succeed to the extent that it seeks to challenge the findings on unfair dismissal. They, as we have indicated, are the only findings which are sought to be criticised in this Appeal Tribunal. In the circumstances, it is not appropriate for this appeal proceed to a further hearing, and it is hereby dismissed.