United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR D BASU (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON

1. This is the preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Southampton on 21 March 2000. That decision was to dismiss the Appellant's complaint of unfair dismissal. Her Originating Application had complained of unfair dismissal and had sought a redundancy payment.
2. The Appellant had been employed as a shop manager for the Respondent, and had worked for over seven years in that capacity before her dismissal on the grounds of redundancy. Initially, when the prospect of redundancy had loomed, the Respondent had reassured the Appellant, but then the time came when the Respondent confirmed the redundancy situation and made offers of two alternatives, neither of which were suitable because of the Appellant's health problems.
3. She initially complained that she had not been paid redundancy nor given compensation for unfair dismissal. The Respondent said that the Appellant's job had become redundant when the shop lease where she was employed had been sold. There was warning given in July, followed by consultation and offers of alternatives which were refused. Indeed, any discussion by the Appellant was not forthcoming, although the Respondent claimed that they had tried to discuss her disability. They concluded their Appearance by saying that she had now received her redundancy payment.
4. The issues are succinctly set out in the extended reasons of the Tribunal at paragraph 12 as follows:-

"12 The applicant's case is that she was unfairly dismissed, that there was insufficient warning and insufficient consultation, and that the respondent failed in its obligation to explore the possibility of alternative employment. The respondent's case is that the dismissal was fair, that it was on the grounds of redundancy, that the steps they took were the sort of steps that a reasonable employer would take in a redundancy situation."

The Tribunal went on in succeeding paragraphs, but particularly paragraph 13 to direct itself adequately and properly about those issues which it had defined in the preceding paragraph.

5. It appears that when negotiations were still in hand between solicitors on behalf of the proposed Appellant, and the Respondent, the Respondent acceded to the suggestion of the Appellant's solicitors that they should continue to pay her, pending a satisfactory conclusion of the negotiations. This was at a time when the Appellant was on sick leave, and if she had not been receiving payments of wages, she would have been entitled to seek state benefits. She would also have been entitled to claim benefit from her mortgage insurance, and probably some income tax repayments.
6. There is a time limit placed upon claims for two of those benefits and that time limit had expired before the conclusion of negotiations. The conclusion of the negotiations did not result in further employment and, when the time came for a quantification of the Appellant's redundancy entitlement, the monies which had been paid to her as salary were set off as part of the redundancy payment. This prevented the Appellant getting her allowances which, in any case, she would have been out of time to claim. It is submitted on her behalf by Mr Basu, who appears for her today through ELAAS, that there are important matters of law to be discussed and considered on full argument because the result of the way in which things were handled has been to disadvantage the Appellant financially. We consider that the matter should proceed to full argument. We categorise it as Category C and suggest a time estimate of two hours.