United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant


 


JUDGE A WAKEFIELD

1. This is an ex-parte preliminary hearing in a single case which has two separate appeal numbers, apparently because the Appellant has submitted two Notices of Appeal.
2. The hearing is to determine whether there are sufficient grounds shown for the case to proceed to a full hearing. Neither party is represented here today and the decision is made on the basis of the documents.
3. The Decision appealed against was one by a London North Employment Tribunal, given on 7 April 2000 by which the Appellant's application as regards unfair dismissal was dismissed, on the basis that a binding settlement had been negotiated by a Conciliation Officer.
4. The appeal is made on the ground that the Employment Tribunal was wrong to accept the evidence of the Conciliation Officer that such a settlement had been reached, as against that of the Appellant that it had not. The Appellant in the Notices of Appeal continues to contend that he had given no authority to the Conciliation Officer to enter into such a settlement.
5. The Employment Tribunal heard all the relevant evidence and, in our view, made a proper decision on the basis of that which they accepted. There is no basis for a full hearing of this matter, and the appeal is dismissed.
6. The next case is case no EAT/1246/00 and the proper heading of this case is Hagag v Metropole Hotel (Holdings) Ltd. This again, is an ex-parte preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Hagag, in order to determine whether the case shows sufficient grounds for the matter to proceed to a full hearing. Once again, the Applicant is not represented, and the matter is dealt with on the basis of the documentation.
7. The appeal is against the Decision of the Brighton Employment Tribunal, given on 6 July 2000 in which the complaint of unfair dismissal was dismissed, firstly on the basis that the Appellant had only been employed between September 1999 and March 2000, and therefore had an insufficient period of employment to found a claim of unfair dismissal. And secondly, that he had not in any event been dismissed, but had resigned.
8. The Notice of Appeal sets out as the ground for challenge of that Decision that the end of the employment was a result of dismissal, and not resignation. Again, we are satisfied that the Employment Tribunal properly took account of the evidence before it, and reached an unassailable conclusion in the light of that evidence. No point of law arises to require a full hearing. The appeal is dismissed.