United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


LORD JOHNSTON: This is a preliminary hearing of the appeal at the instance of a Mr P Mundy against a finding of the Industrial Tribunal that he was not unfairly dismissed from his employment with the respondent, Rentokil Limited.

When the case was called before us this morning we were informed that Mr Mundy was not going to attend on the basis that he had been misinformed as to the date of the hearing, and in the course of the morning we received a faxed letter from him indicating that he was under the impression that the hearing was due on 13th October 1998. He was unable to attend by reason of short notice due to the distance he lived from the Court. We were however shown a Notice of Hearing from this office indicating that the hearing would take place on 12th October 1998, sent out in June 1998. In these circumstances, we are entirely satisfied that the appellant has had due notice of this hearing, and should, if he had wanted to in his own interests, have attended. He states in the letter that he has no objection to the hearing being heard in his absence and that is what we proceeded to do.

The Industrial Tribunal's decision is essentially to be found in paragraph 15 onwards of their decision when they set out the background to the dismissal or resignation, according to how it is to be categorised. It is important to note that the substance of the decision by the tribunal is that there was no dismissal, but rather a resignation. The tribunal therefore properly considered in that context whether or not such proposed variations in the employee's contract of employment being proposed by the employer were sufficiently fundamental to go to the root of the contract, albeit this being against a background established in evidence that the employer was dissatisfied with the conduct or actions of the employee as employee and in particular with his general work as a surveyor. The tribunal go on in paragraph 17 of the decision to address, in our view, the correct test and to find as a matter of fact that the appellant terminated his own contract and not in circumstances where he was entitled to do it by reason of the employer's conduct. While in some circumstances that issue can raise a question of law, in this case it is quite apparent to us that the tribunal approached the matter as one of fact, and on that basis, this case does not raise any question of law which can be considered by this Appeal Tribunal in relation to the issue of constructive dismissal.

That being so, we consider this appeal is unarguable, and it will be dismissed.