United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE BUTTER QC: This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by MsMargaret Yarwood in respect of a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at Manchester on 24 September 1997. The extended reasons for that decision were sent out on 30 September 1997.

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was:

".... that the applicant was dismissed. Her employment was terminated at the respondent's initiative on 17 April 1997 and the reason for the termination of this employment related to the capability of the applicant."

Today before this Tribunal the Applicant did not attend, but we have a letter from Solicitors who act on her behalf, saying that due to her limited resources (she is in receipt of State benefit) she is unable to travel to London and wishes the hearing to be dealt with in her absence. They enclose their client's draft skeleton argument which we have considered.

The facts as stated by the Chairman were that Ms Yarwood had been employed from 2 March 1971 until 17 April 1997, that is to say 26 years, in the capacity of a presser at their hat factory in Stockport. Unhappily, Ms Yarwood had the misfortune to suffer over a long period of time from ill-health and she was away from work as from October 1992.

In 1996 new managers decided that they wished to see a medical report. Yet further, in March 1997 new management, becoming aware that there were some seven cases of long-term incapacity, decided to deal with those cases and to try to resolve the problems.

Accordingly, on 10 March 1997, Mr Darbyshire, the then Financial Director wrote to the Applicant, noting that she was unable to return to work and saying that in those circumstances they, the employers, were still holding her position open, but were considering termination on the grounds of ill-health. They made a proposal in their letter and the Applicant took that letter to her Solicitor and he drafted a letter of reply for her, which acknowledged that:

"... although she would like to come back she was not able to do so and that she would accept the amount which was offered in termination of her employment, subject to her making enquiry about any holiday pay that may be due and about the pension arrangements."

In response, on 17 April 1997, Mr Darbyshire wrote to the Applicant confirming that the employers had no option other than to terminate her employment for the reason of ill-health and enclosed a cheque for £1,554.24 and asked her to sign a receipt accepting it in full and final settlement. The Applicant did so and returned the receipt to the employers and that brought her employment to a conclusion.

The Company had not been trading successfully for some time and in May 1997 a decision was taken that the Stockport premises should be closed. The Company moved quickly to advise its workforce and after consultation with the Union on 22 May, it became plain that with a few exceptions the workforce at Stockport would be made redundant. Thus a number of former colleagues of the Applicant found that they were paid substantial redundancy payments. The Applicant felt that she, in turn, ought to receive compensation on those lines.

In paragraph 11 of the extended reasons the Tribunal directed itself in accordance with section 98 (1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and went on to say:

"Having heard the evidence, this Tribunal is persuaded that, despite what unfortunate coincidences there may be as to the timing, at the time that the applicant's employment was terminated it was a genuine termination for a reason connected with the applicant's capability. She was not able to return to work, she acknowledged that to be the case and that is why her employment, and that of five others in similar circumstances, was terminated in April 1997. While the Tribunal has every sympathy with the applicant, the Tribunal is unable to find in the circumstances that the reason, or the main reason, for the termination of her employment in April 1997 was that she was redundant and, accordingly, she is not entitled to a redundancy payment."

Whilst this Tribunal today reiterates the sympathy which the Industrial Tribunal expressed, we are quite unable to say that the Tribunal below erred as a matter of law, or reached a decision which could not reasonably be reached.

In all the circumstances we are clear and are unanimous in our view that the appeal fails and must be dismissed.