United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Applicant, Miss King, commenced employment with the Respondent, Mr Wilson, trading as A R Wilson & Co. as a full time clerical assistant at his Huddersfield Offices on 8 August 1988. The Respondent is a chartered surveyor and carried on business as an estate agent and property manager. He also operated an agency for the Yorkshire Building Society.

In May 1995 the Applicant changed to working part-time 3½ days a week. In 1997 there were problems over her time-keeping and the accuracy of her work, in respect of which complaints were received from the Building Society. She received a verbal warning in October 1997.

On 8 December 1997 the Respondent wrote to the Applicant informing her that her part-time post would be surplus to requirements as from 31 January 1998, to be replaced by a full-time post. She was to be considered for the full time post subject to her giving assurances as to her future conduct. On 26 January 1998 she wrote saying she would like to be considered for the full time post. On 12 February she wrote again, informing the Respondent that she was pregnant. On 25 February he wrote, withdrawing the opportunity for her to take the new post and repeating an earlier offer of redundancy.

On 17 March the Applicant presented complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful sex discrimination against the Respondent to the Employment Tribunal. Those complaints came before the Leeds Tribunal on 7 August 1998. By a decision with Extended Reasons dated 24 August the Tribunal upheld both complaints. There is no appeal against those findings. The question of remedies was adjourned.

At the remedies hearing held on 13 October the Tribunal found that the Applicant had made reasonable attempts to find alternative employment following the birth of her child on 30 May 1998 and applying their local knowledge the Tribunal concluded that it would take another six months from the date of remedies hearing for her to find comparable new employment. Further, they accepted the Applicant's evidence that she had enquired about state maternity allowance and was told that she was not entitled to it.

The Tribunal proceeded to assess her loss accordingly, deducting 40% from the unfair dismissal compensatory award for her contributory conduct. No deduction was made from the basic award, which had been satisfied by the equivalent redundancy payment. The total award for unfair dismissal was £2,958.00. Further she was awarded £3,500.00 plus interest for injury to feelings under the sex discrimination claim.

Against the assessment of compensation, the Respondent appealed by a notice dated 14 December 1998, settled by the Employment Law Advisory Services Limited ("ELAS").

The appeal has been listed before us today for a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not it raises any arguable point or points of law. On 1 March 1999 ELAS faxed this Tribunal stating that they were no longer instructed on behalf of Mr Wilson in the appeal. This morning enquiries were made of Mr Wilson direct and by fax he informs us that he wishes this Tribunal to consider the merits of the appeal based on the paperwork submitted on his behalf by ELAS. We shall do so.

The grounds of appeal raise two issues. First it is said that the Tribunal's finding that the Applicant would take a further six months to find employment in the Huddersfield area was perverse. First on the basis that anyone aware of the labour situation in the Huddersfield area would know that it would take less time for a person of the Applicant's age and with her qualifications to find new employment and secondly, because such future loss is in itself excessive. We reject that submission. It is quite clear that Employment Tribunals, which have the benefit of lay members who are experienced in the local labour market, are perfectly entitled to use that local knowledge for such matters as the assessment of future loss of earnings, provided that local knowledge does not conflict with the evidence which they have heard. There is no suggestion in the Notice of Appeal that such a conflict exists. See Dugdale v Kraft Foods Ltd [1977] ICR 48, and Harrington v Berker Sportcraft Ltd [1980] ICR 248.

The second issue raised in the Notice of Appeal relates to the Applicant's failure to receive maternity allowance. The argument is that in failing to obtain that allowance she has failed to mitigate her loss, since monies paid would be offset against the award made against the Respondent. Again, we reject that contention. It seems to us that the Tribunal properly considered that matter and came to the conclusion that in making enquiries as to her rights, the Applicant had discharged her responsibility to take reasonable steps to mitigate her loss.

Those being the only two grounds of appeal raised in the Notice, neither of which in our judgment raising any arguable point of law, we must dismiss this appeal.