United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR T LINDEN (of Counsel) Engineering Employers Federation Broadway House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NQ


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law which the employers wish to make against the unanimous decision of an Employment Tribunal held at Reading on 16 September 1998. Mr Linden, on their behalf, has urged us to the view that there are two heads which are arguable points of law fit for a full hearing.

The first relates to the award of a statutory redundancy payment to the Applicant employee. The Tribunal found, as a fact, in paragraph 8 (12) that the Applicant never had any intention of taking the job which was offered to him for the simple reason that he had a much better opportunity in prospect and that that was the reason why he turned it down. They then went on to hold that they were satisfied that the refusal of the Cirencester offer was, in the circumstances, reasonable and accordingly said that he was entitled to a redundancy payment.

There are obvious arguments, as it seems to us to be made, as to the Tribunal's approach on that question.

Secondly, was he entitled to a contractual redundancy payment? The factual basis for the Tribunal's decision stems round a discussion which was held on 25 September 1997 at a meeting between the Applicant and the Respondent's Personnel Manager, that is the Appellant's Personnel Manager, responsible for their Engineering sites. Paragraph 8 (6) reads:

"(6)... in the course of which [that meeting] Mr Farrell presented and explained an illustration of the redundancy benefits (calculated in accordance with the respondents' formula) which the applicant could expect to receive if and when he lost his job as a consequence of the Witney plant closing down."

The Tribunal concluded that that constituted a contractual promise or that there was some kind of implied term arising from the conversation which took place between the parties. Again, it seems to us to be arguable that the Tribunal have not approached that issue in a legally correct manner.

Those points seem to us to be arguable and we give leave for the case to proceed on that basis. It is, I think, a Category C case and should last for no longer than two hours.

The Respondents will, in due course, have to put in an answer. I think they have 14 days for doing so and their answer should specifically deal with each of the points raised in the Notice of Appeal with particularity, so that it will then become possible to see whether this is a case where limited notes of evidence are required for the doing of justice on the hearing of the appeal. A general answer will not be regarded as sufficient in these circumstances and we so direct.