At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC
MR J C SHRIGLEY
MS B SWITZER
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR F J HUTTON (the Appellant in Person) |
For the Respondent | MR J W THOMPSON (the Respondent in Person) |
SUMMARY
Contract of Employment
ET overlooked the fact that there was a claim for damages for breach of contract. Remitted to consider whether there was any amount for contracted sick pay unpaid.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC
"Accordingly we find for the applicant in this matter. There is some measure of agreement between the parties after discussion that the gross figure so deducted would be £3,302.77 and the net figure £2,982. There is a difference between the parties as to whether we should award net or gross and accordingly we have given the directions above to which the parties have consented in effect saying they hope the parties will be able to determine issue as to whether it was gross or net failing that there would have to be further paper argument rather further oral argument."
"As stated above, the Applicant appealed on 8 January 2001 to the EAT, which allowed his appeal on 11 April 2002. It is to be noted that the Burgundy Book rules were produced for the first time before EAT. Inter alia the EAT found that the Tribunal should not have rejected the Applicant's oral evidence as to what the Burgundy Book terms were in the absence of any contradictory evidence. Alternatively, the Tribunal should have adjourned to obtain a copy of the rules so as to assess whether they should apply in preference to the express term in clause 4 on page 2 and if so how much was due under them. The case was then remitted to the same Tribunal. On remission the Tribunal found on 1 October 2002 that the Burgundy Book rules did apply and by agreement found that sick pay amounting to some £3,300 gross or £2,982 net had been unlawfully withheld from the Applicant."
They then go on to put that in the context of the claim for constructive dismissal.