United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE PROPHET

1. This is a Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr Harris in respect of a decision by an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (South) with Ms C Taylor as the Chairman, which at a hearing on 17 April 2002 held that his complaint of a breach of contract by his former employer, the University of Greenwich, failed. It was also held that his complaint of an unfair dismissal also failed.
2. Mr Harris has not attended at the hearing today. Contact has been made by telephone through the associate and Mr Harris has indicated that he was unaware that there was a hearing here today. That is difficult to understand. A Notice of Hearing was sent to him by the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 13 December 2002 indicating quite clearly that the hearing would take place at 10.30am today. Furthermore, there is a second letter sent to him on 16 December 2002 which sent him a copy of the new Employment Appeal Tribunal Practice Direction, which also in the second paragraph of that letter specifically referred to the forthcoming hearing on 17 January 2003.
3. Accordingly we have decided to proceed with this appeal in the absence of Mr Harris.
4. There are two grounds of appeal. First, Mr Harris says that it was perverse of the Employment Tribunal to conclude that there was no breach of contract. This part of his appeal relates not to wrongful dismissal but to his assertion that the University's disciplinary procedure was part of his contract of employment and that there were breaches of his contract arising from that. Mr Harris clarifies in his Notice of Appeal that he does not challenge the finding that there was no wrongful dismissal.
5. The second ground relates to the Employment Tribunal procedure, which appears essentially to consist of challenges to the evidence presented to the Tribunal and the Tribunal's findings of fact consequent therefrom.
6. We are satisfied that there is nothing in either of those grounds of appeal which could justify this case proceeding to a full hearing. The Employment Tribunal correctly considered, at paragraph 32 of its reasons, as a separate issue from wrongful dismissal, the allegations relating to the procedural steps required by the disciplinary procedure and concluded that any complaints of breach of contract arising therefrom were wholly unfounded. Furthermore, there is no substance in there being any defect in the procedures followed by the Employment Tribunal in reaching its judgment.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at this stage.
8. I add this having regard to our proceeding today with the appeal in Mr Harris' absence. There is liberty to apply by Mr Harris if he considers that there are any proper grounds for this judgment to be reviewed (Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules, Rule 33).