United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: By an application to an Industrial Tribunal dated 11 June 1996, Mr B Bentley complained that he had been unfairly dismissed by the Inland Revenue department of the Civil Service. The Inland Revenue put in its Notice of Appearance dated 16 August 1996, where they set out their reasons for dismissing him. In short, the dismissal arose from his conduct in employment.

The hearing of Mr Bentley's complaint was at London (North) on 24 March 1997. Summary reasons were despatched to the parties on 18 April 1997. The Tribunal held that the complaint of Mr Bentley was not well-founded and he was not unfairly dismissed. The name of the Respondent was amended to read the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Apparently by letter dated 4 May 1997, Messrs Aslam & Co. Solicitors for Mr Bentley, "the Solicitors", sought a review of the decision out of time. That review was determined by the Chairman on the merits and dismissed on 27 June 1997.

From that decision Mr Bentley appealed by a Notice of Appeal was settled for him by the solicitors and dated 12 August 1997. The Notice stated Mr Bentley appealed for:

"Decision on application for a review and to extend time for review Unfair Dismissal"

The notice referred to a letter attached to it dated 4 August 1997 for ascertainment of the grounds of appeal.

Mr Bentley's appeal came up for a Preliminary Hearing on 26 November 1997. The hearing was adjourned until after an application for extended reasons had been made and determined by the Industrial Tribunal.

Such an application seems to have been made on 9 December 1997.

By a letter to the Appellant dated 31 January 1998, the solicitors were given reasons for refusing to give Extended Reasons; shortly stated the application was refused because no or no sufficient excuse was given for the dealy between the decision being promulgated and the request for the Extended Reasons.

We have therefore heard Mr Bentley's appeal today on the merits of the decision made by the Industrial Tribunal promulgated on 18 April 1997.

It is clear from what Mr Bentley has said to us this morning that his case before us is that the work which he was to do for the Commissioners changed in the course of his employment and he says that he was not given written notification of this. We pointed out to him in the course of the hearing that if this was a matter which was referred and dealt with and found against him below, this was not a matter which raised a point of law which could be dealt with on appeal.

In paragraph 1 of the Summary Reasons of the Industrial Tribunal it was stated:

"The Applicant was originally employed by the Respondents as a doorman/ messenger. He was employed to work out of Craig House in Ealing. During the course of employment there has been a reference to this Tribunal of what the Respondents have said amounts to variation in the terms of his employment so that when his employment ended he was employed to do a wider range of duties than that restricted to be a doorman/messenger. The Applicant had meeting which were numerous with the Respondents which resulted in his employment being terminated on 15 March 1996. He subsequently appealed unsuccessfully."

Paragraph 7 has this elliptical paragraph included:

"..... The Applicant has referred to the fact that some documents were not made aware to him until later. Does this some how estop the Respondents from relying upon them? We are satisfied this is not the case, there had been consultation with the union concerning them. We accept that the Applicant was not a member of the union, nevertheless the terms for employees generally were discussed."

We say this paragraph is elliptical because we think the last sentence refers back to the first paragraph of the Summary Reasons where the Industrial Tribunal make it clear that there was discussion between the Applicant and the Commissioners about his employment and the change of his duties. If this is right, the matters on which he wishes to appeal were matters which were dealt with at the Industrial Tribunal and summarily dealt with in the reasons for the decision. The only reason that we do not have Extended Reasons is that no application was made timeously for those reasons.

We are satisfied in this case there is no point of law to go forward for a full appeal. Mr Bentley has articulated his case before us very fairly and fully this morning. We are satisfied that he has had his day in Court. His case was considered and determined against him. He is not entitled to another one where no point of law is raised. In the circumstances we dismiss this appeal at this stage.