United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Appellant neither Present nor Represented


 


JUDGE WILCOX

1. This is an appeal by the Appellant, against a decision of the Liverpool Industrial Tribunal. It is clear that the Appellant has a very genuine sense of grievance as to how she came to lose her employment. She says that in fact it was on account of her protesting against being a passenger in a vehicle driven by her employer when she reasonably suspected he might be under the influence of drink. Sadly she had only been employed for 1 year and 6½ months. The qualifying period, of course is 2 years. She urges us to consider an adjourning a decision on this application pending the outcome of Regina –v- The Secretary of State Ex parte Seymour Smith and Perez.
2. We sadly have come to the conclusion that the exercise of discretion by the Chairman below was an exercise of discretion that we cannot interfere with. He properly directed himself as the law it is exemplified in his extended reasons of 24 October 1996 and we cannot interfere with it. We therefore dismiss this appeal.
3. Mrs Bennett has not been able to attend; she should be reassured when she reads these reasons that close consideration has been given to her case, as had she the opportunity of attending before us today.