United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR N PLETCHY (Representative)


 


JUDGE CLARK: The Appellants, Mr and Mrs Reeves, ran a shop during the day. Needing some extra income they applied for night work at the Respondent's Yorkshire Pudding Factory. They were both taken on; Mr Reeves started on 28 December 1997; his wife on 25 January 1998.

1. Both signed statements of terms and condition of employment issued by the Respondent. Those statement referred to a three month trial period, and provided that for between one month and two years service the notice of termination of employment to be given by the employer would be one week; equivalent to the statutory minimum requirement contained in section 86 (1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
2. Whilst the Appellants were on holiday at the end of March 1998 the Respondent wrote them a letter dated 25 March informing them that as from 28 March their contract would not be renewed due to market conditions. The Yorkshire Pudding Business is somewhat seasonal.
3. The Appellants have a friend, Mr Pletchy, a lecturer in law. He helped them to prepare Originating Applications which they presented to the Leeds Employment Tribunal. They claimed damages for breach of contract. In addition to one weeks pay in lieu of notice, which was paid by the Respondent before the claims came on for hearing before a Chairman, Mr P Hildebrand sitting alone at Leeds on 28 August 1998, the Appellants claims were formulated in this way:
4. Mr Reeves, six months loss of earnings in the sum of £4,248 plus "aggravated damages for mental anxiety states and depression in addition to undue influence, £20,000." Mrs Reeves' claim was pitched more modestly; she also claimed loss of earnings for six months as unable to claim benefits also in the sum of £4,248. However, her claim for aggravated damages was only for inconvenience and distress and was put at £10,000.
5. The Chairman was singularly unimpressed with those claims. He could see no basis in law for them. For the extended reasons given in a decision promulgated on 28 September 1998 he dismissed both claims.
6. Whilst expressing sympathy to the Appellants who had placed themselves in the hands of their friend Mr Pletchy, the Chairman acceded to an application made by the Respondents for their costs. Those costs were ordered to be paid on County Court Scale 2, the costs to be taxed. Now there is an appeal.
7. Mr Pletchy first submits that he was only served with the Respondent's witness statements 15 minutes before the hearing commenced, although it had been agreed between the parties, although not directed by the Tribunal, that exchange would take place seven days before the hearing. The Appellants disclosed their witness statements in advance. We have read those statements and in view of the issues raised in the case, we are not satisfied that late service materially disadvantaged the Appellants and their representative in the presentation of their case.
8. His principal submission in the appeal is that the case raised a potential claim under Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome. Further discovery requested from the Respondent, but not provided, might have given a basis for such a claim, although it was not pleaded in the Originating Applications. He says that leave to amend to add that claim could have been made.
9. He has referred to the circumstances in which the Appellants learnt of their dismissal; receipt of a letter on return from holiday, causing certainly Mr Reeves to become depressed. In short, he puts the question of law to us in this way: does Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome apply to a breach of contract by an inequitable termination? The answer to that question in our judgment is even shorter. No.
10. Article 119 deals with equal treatment between men and women. The finding of the European Court of Justice at paragraph 29 of the judgment in Seymour Smith, to which Mr Pletchy has referred us, merely establishes that compensation payable on termination of employment whether at common law or at statute, is pay for the purposes of Article 119. It does not allow of a claim under Article 119 for breach of contract, or the manner of that breach.
11. In our judgment this appeal is misconceived. The Chairman reached a permissible conclusion on the claims before him. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.