 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Shearn v ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd [1992] UKEAT 111_92_0412 (04 December 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/111_92_0412.html Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 111_92_0412, [1992] UKEAT 111_92_412 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
On 4th December 1992
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR A D SCOTT
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is a Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mrs Shearn from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting in Liverpool under the Chairmanship of Mr Mather. The Hearing took place over three days. The Respondents, her employers, were ICI Chemicals & Polymers Limited. It was a majority decision that her complaint, that she had been constructively dismissed, failed.
She, by a letter of the 3rd December 1990, resigned her employment. It was accepted by her employers, the Company, by letter of the following day.
There is a long history to this matter, it is admirably set out in the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and we propose therefore, only to examine the matter in such detail as is necessary to understand our reasoning.
The Applicant was a Personnel Officer and she was arguing that the treatment she received from the Company was such that really the only thing she could do was to resign by that letter of the 3rd December.
The Applicant had been in the employ of the Company from August 1978 and had worked her way up until she was finally Personnel Officer at the Winsford Salt Works. She had an excellent record. She was absent from work from the 5th to 9th November 1990 inclusive.
On Monday 5th her son telephoned to say that she had sinusitis and an ear infection, and would be off work. It was said that she was at her mother-in-law's house. The Applicant, in fact, had commitments for Monday 12th November which she did not keep; this caused some concern to the site manager, Mr Jones. There was a procedure whereby, when you returned, you notified sick absences and gave details about it. She did return on the 12th. Mr Jones spoke to her and asked if she had recovered, and if she had not to suggest that she should take off further time. Mr Jones saw her later that day because of certain rumours which were circulating in the factory. The rumours circulating were as to her whereabouts during the week she had been away. It was suggested that she might have been in Spain, where she and her husband had a family holiday villa. Her response at that time was to say, simply, that she had been at her mother-in-laws because her husband was fixing the pipes at their house.
The rumours persisted and Mr Jones spoke to a Mr Lamond. He, in turn, informed a Senior Personnel Manager at Runcorn, Mr White. Mr Lamond asked for a note and subsequently there was a formal disciplinary interview, an investigation. Mrs Shearn was advised of her right to have a representative with her but she declined. Mr Jones asked her about this matter formally and, to cut the matter short, she made a number of statements and explanations which were not entirely satisfactory. There were further enquiries and her story changed. Ultimately, Mr Lamond, who had taken on the matter, said to her, well, it was Mr Jones, the site manager who really had to be satisfied about the matter, and therefore a further meeting was arranged. At the meeting, at which Mr Jones attended, she was to make further explanations. She said that she had not wanted to disclose what she thought had been an entirely personal and private matter. She said she was bitter about the personal attacks made upon her from within the factory. She threatened to resign; the men tried to persuade her not to do so, said it really was not a resignation issue; what they needed to be satisfied on was that she had not been in Spain and that she had not, therefore, misled them in any way in which case she would have their full support and confidence. She did not heed that advice and she wrote her letter.
This matter was examined with the greatest of care by the Tribunal, they found that the way in which the matter was handled, and the investigation was entirely appropriate, they give their reasons in paragraph 14, 15 and 16 and the majority reach a clear decision. The minority Member gave differing views but they do not need to be examined by us. It was the decision of the majority that stood and in our judgment there is no discernible error of law which merits further investigation.
The appeal is dismissed.