United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR D NOBBS The Appellant in person
For the Respondent


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by Mr Nobbs, the Applicant before the Bury St. Edmunds Employment Tribunal sitting on 13 February 1998, against that Tribunal's decision to dismiss his complaint of unfair dismissal against his former employer, Cams Systems Ltd (CSL). The extended reasons for that decision were promulgated on the 15 May 1998.

He commenced employment with the company as Engineering Director on the 29th September 1985 and was a Board member. Further he became a 5% shareholder, those shares being given to him by the then majority shareholder, Mr Christie at Christmas 1987.

In 1996 the Christie family's 81% shareholding in CSL was acquired by Adro Technologies Ltd. The Managing Director and major shareholder in Adro was a Mr Allan Roe.

It is clear from the Tribunal's findings that as time went on the Appellant became unhappy with the new regime. Quite simply, he refused and continues to refuse to accept the authority of Mr Roe. Mr Roe's evidence, accepted by the Tribunal was that he was appointed a director of CSL on the 5 October 1996 and became Managing Director. From that position, the story unfolded. The Tribunal found that on the 23 June 1997, the Appellant was given a verbal warning by Mr Roe recorded in a note on his file. Before us today, in addition to a number of factual points taken by the Appellant, Mr Nobbs challenges that finding that a verbal warning was given on that occasion but to continue with the narrative, the problems arose over a directive that staff should work in an open plan office, the Appellant considering that he should have his own office. That culminated in his barricading in a colleague, Mr Harrold's, desk with cabinets and other furniture and equipment.

On 17 July a meeting took place between Mr Roe and the Appellant which resulted in a warning letter being presented to the Appellant on the 24 July. Having received it, the Appellant wrote the words "not accepted" across the letter. Meanwhile he had on the Tribunal's findings been pressing an employee Mrs Cunningham-Snell to provide him with certain detailed information. She was reluctant to do so saying that it should go to Mr Roe or the Company Secretary, Mrs Adams. The Tribunal accepted that lady's evidence that she was very upset and in tears. The upshot was that a meeting was arranged for the 29 July to consider the Appellant's future. He attended but left the meeting before it was completed. In the event it was decided that he should be summarily dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct.

The Tribunal found in a nutshell that the reason for dismissal was the Appellant's persistent failure to obey the reasonable orders of Mr Roe. He was not prepared to accept Mr Roe's authority despite repeated warnings. In these circumstances, there having been no justification for the Appellant's direct confrontational attitude towards Mr Roe, the Tribunal concluded that the dismissal was fair.

Against that decision Mr Nobbs applied for a review. That application was dismissed on the grounds that the Chairman took the view that the Appellant was seeking to reargue the case and secondly he has appealed to this Tribunal. We have endeavoured to explain that our powers are limited to correcting errors of law and do not extend to revisiting questions of fact. At the end of his submission Mr Nobbs summarised his grounds of appeal in this way. First that as a matter of company law, Mr Roe was not appointed a director of the company let alone a Managing Director. Secondly that the company's disciplinary procedure was not followed. Third and this bears on the second point, he was not informed that he could be represented at the meetings on the 17 and 24 July. Fourth, he was not put on the training programme and fifth, the Chairman's extended reasons were erroneous in a number of factual details.

Dealing with those points, the question of whether or not Mr Roe was validly appointed a director of the company in October 1996 it was an issue that was investigated before the Employment Tribunal and they were satisfied that he was duly appointed and was the person with the authority of Managing Director within CSL.

As to the procedural complaints, the Tribunal were satisfied that the Appellant was given every opportunity to alter his attitude having being warned earlier but he persisted. This was a case in which the Appellant employee's position was fixed and having heard him today, it is clear that it remains entirely rigid. In these circumstances, it is difficult to see what further steps could or should have been taken by the employer. He was given an opportunity to state his case on the 29 July but chose to leave that meeting.

So far as representation is concerned, there is no specific reference to that in the Tribunal's reasons. It is not clear that that point was taken below but in any event, as a director of the company we think it clear that Mr Nobbs felt able to represent himself at those two meetings. The point about the training programme really does not give rise to any arguable point of law and finally the accuracy of the Chairman's extended reasons. The points that are made are inconsequential, for example that in paragraph 10 of the reasons, the Chairman records that Mrs Cunningham-Snell thought that the Applicant had flipped whereas that evidence was given by Mrs Adams, the company secretary.

He also took issue with the suggestion that he had demanded information from Mrs Cunningham-Snell although it appears clear from the evidence that it was accepted that it was precisely what he was doing and indeed, he laid down a clear time limit for the provision of that information. In the event it comes to this, we are satisfied that Mr Nobbs holds a genuine and deep seated grievance as to the way in which the company went, and what he regards as the deceitful way in which Mr Roe conducted affairs both in the company and in the Tribunal. However that was a matter of credibility for the Tribunal to judge, not for us.

The short answer to this appeal is that it discloses no arguable point of law to go forward to a full hearing and accordingly it must be dismissed at this stage