At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
MR D NORMAN
MRS R A VICKERS
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:
"He [Mr Hooper] did not submit any signed written statement or, perhaps more importantly, sworn statement to substantiate his evidence. He simply indicated through Mr Churchman, albeit on oath, that nothing had been said which the applicant could have interpreted as dismissal. Mr Churchman said that Mr Hooper had told the applicant that when his sickness had been sorted out to let him know, but that the company would have to take on temporary people in the meantime. By contrast, Mr Churchman indicated that Mr Hooper had told him that they needed somebody to do the job immediately and that it was best that they should part company. The Tribunal concluded that a reasonable employee would interpret those words and phrases as bringing their employment to an end. Nothing was said to the contrary by Mr Hooper. The Tribunal … preferred the sworn evidence of the applicant to the evidence which was given by Mr Churchman. On that basis the applicant, under the written terms of his contract of employment was on termination entitled to receive one week's notice."
That produced a further figure of £148 by way of damages for breach of contract.
"The statement 'Mr Churchman told him it was best to part company' is incorrect. I never said that or words to that effect."