United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. This appeal was listed for preliminary hearing today. We understand that Mr Ibe, the Appellant attended at the Employment Appeal Tribunal this morning that he spoke to Counsel who was available to represent him under the ELAAS Pro Bono Scheme but that since that consultation took place there has been no sign of him in the building. The case was called on at 1.10 pm and there was no reply. In these circumstances we have decided to deal with the case on the papers.
2. The Appellant was employed by the Respondent, Abbot Security Services 1977 Ltd from 21 November 1999 until 3 March 2000 as a security guard working at a site called Crystal Holdings, according to the findings of fact made by the London (N) Employment Tribunal considering Mr Ibe's complaint of unfair dismssal on 16 May 2000.
3. On 3 March 2000 the Applicant was found to be missing from the site. An investigation was set in train. The Applicant was seen by Mr Taylor of the Respondent at a disciplinary hearing held on 3 March. On that occasion the Applicant accepted the contents of a report which said that he had left the site in order to buy food for his lunch.
4. In these circumstances Mr Taylor then dismissed him. An internal appeal against that decision was dismissed by Mr Oliver on 7 March and further representations by the Applicant to the Managing Director Mr Edwards failed to overturn at the original decision.
5. The Tribunal pointed out to the Applicant that he had not completed one year's continuous service with the Respondent and that unless the Respondent's reason for dismissal was an inadmissible reason not requiring any period of continuous employment his claim failed on that jurisdictional ground.
6. In their reasons promulgated on 22 June 2000 the Tribunal note at paragraph 13 that although Mr Ibe had earlier contended in correspondence with the Respondent that he was dismissed for health and safety reason that was not something which he pursued before the Tribunal.
7. The Tribunal then went on to make a specific finding that the Respondent's reason for dismissal was a reason relating to conduct, namely that they believed that the Applicant had absented himself from the site. That is a potentially fair reason under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In these circumstances they declined jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.
8. By his appeal contained in a notice dated 2 August 2000 the Appellant seeks to raise again the health and safety reason for dismissal. There are 2 difficulties with that argument. The first is that on the Tribunal's findings to which we have earlier referred that was not a matter which was pursued before the Employment Tribunal.
9. It follows that it cannot now be pursued as a new point before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but secondly on the evidence which they heard the Tribunal made a finding that the Respondent's reason for dismissal was that put forward by the Respondent namely a conduct reason.
10. In those circumstances the Act requires that the Appellant had completed one year's continuous service in order to give the Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain his complaint of unfair dismissal. He accepted that he did not have that length of service. It follows in these circumstances that the Tribunal's decision is unimpeachable on appeal. The appeal is dismissed.