United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MRS ELIZABETH ANDREW (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE SEROTA QC

1. This appeal relates to a claim made by Mr Neil Durrant against his former employers, Financial Collection Agency Ltd.
2. Mr Durrant began his employment with the Respondent on
   14 January 1999. His employment was terminated in December 1999. As he had not been employed for a 12 month period he had no remedy by way of a claim for unfair dismissal. However, his contract, as the Employment Tribunal found, contained provisions dealing with grievance procedure. That grievance procedure required various steps to be taken by the employer before a dismissal could be made on the basis that the Appellant had not achieved the required standard. The dismissal on notice of Mr Durrant was made without the employer having complied with the disciplinary grievance rules and procedure.
3. The Employment Tribunal considered that as Mr Durrant was a senior employee it was reasonable for the employers to deal with his dismissal without reference to the disciplinary grievance rules and procedure.
4. It is unnecessary and inappropriate for us to go into any detail as to the merits of the appeal. Suffice it to say that in our view there is a fairly arguable case that the Tribunal was in error in failing to find that there had been a breach of contract by the employer in failing to comply with the grievance procedure and in failing to consider what financial consequences, as a matter of law of contract, flowed from that breach of contract.
5. In those circumstances, it seems to us, that we should allow this appeal to go forward and we do so. In our opinion and subject to anything that might be said by Mrs Andrew the case should be listed as Category C. We think it will not last more than 2 hours. We will order that skeleton arguments be lodged by both Appellant and Respondent at least 14 days before the date of hearing accompanied by copies of any authorities referred to in the skeleton arguments or upon which either party wishes to rely.