At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J McMULLEN QC
MRS R CHAPMAN
MR M CLANCY
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MISS SALLY ROBERTSON (of Counsel) Instructed By: Messrs Gales Solicitors 512 Wimborne Road Winton Bournemouth Dorset BH9 2ET |
For the Respondent | MR DANIEL OUDKERK (of Counsel) Solicitors EEF Broadway House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NQ |
JUDGE J McMULLEN QC:
(1) A complaint by Mr Hemmings about the Applicant's attitude to Mr Fulford, who was working on a project for Mr Hemmings.
(2) A conversation with Mr Ketteringham regarding the latter's salary and working arrangements which resulted in Mr Ketteringham speaking and, we divine, complaining to Mr Smith.
(3) Aggressive behaviour at one of the annualised hours meetings, that is 4 April 2000 to which we referred.
(4) Accusations to Mr Bailey of favouritism.
"It is clear therefore that Parliament considered that good industrial relations requires employers to provide their employees with a method of dealing with grievances in a proper and timeous fashion. This is also consistent of course with the Codes of Practice. That being so the industrial tribunal was entitled in our judgment to conclude that there was an implied term in the contract of employment that the employers would reasonably and promptly afford a reasonable opportunity to their employees to obtain redress and any grievance they may have. It was in our judgment rightly conceived that the industrial tribunal that such could be a breach of contract: see paragraph 11."
"9 ... we are satisfied that for whatever reason … for a period certainly of 4-5 months the applicant was acting in a critical, confrontational, and on occasions aggressive manner towards management and fellow employees."
"It is always unacceptable for a tribunal to assert its conclusion in a decision without giving reasons."
"We find no basis for asserting or alleging that the grievance procedure as a whole was anything other than fair, detailed and thorough."