[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Murdoch v Premier Poultry Ltd [1993] UKEAT 253_93_2911 (29 November 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/253_93_2911.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 253_93_2911

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 253_93_2911

Appeal No. EAT/253/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 29 November 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUCKER

MR A FERRY MBE

MR J H GALBRAITH CB

---

MISS L MURDOCH          APPELLANT

PREMIER POULTRY LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY

OR REPRESENTATION

ON BEHALF OF THE

APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE TUCKER: This is an appeal against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Shrewsbury in February 1993. The grounds of appeal are not very easy to understand and they are inelegantly expressed. They are:

"a. The Tribunal failed to take into account that the Applicant, who was dismissed for gross misconduct on Health and Safety grounds, (and falsifying accident book) the evidence of the Application being very health and safety conscious; who had been instrumental in preventing employees mixing chemicals. Moreover, the Respondents themselves were in breach of Health and Safety Regulations in not providing the applicant with proper training."

We are bound to say that we find it difficult to make sense of that ground and it does not seem to us to raise any point of law in any event:

"b. The applicant cannot have been dismissed on both grounds (1) allowing an employee Mr Griffiths to mix chemicals and (2) falsified the accident book. It has got to be one or the other i.e. if the Tribunal believes (1) is correct then (2) is not false."

This would also require explanation. We do not understand why it should not be possible for an employer to dismiss for more than one reason:

"c. The Tribunal failed to accept the Industrial reality of the situation in that it was not possible for the Applicant to prevent Mr Griffiths mixing the chemicals."

Notwithstanding the difficulties we encounter in deciphering what is meant by that Notice of Appeal, we have done our best. We have read the decision of the Tribunal and the other papers which have been placed before us. In particular we have read the manuscripts of grounds of the claimant's complaint as set out in the IT 1.

Neither she, nor any representative are here today to present her application on this Preliminary Hearing. We are satisfied that there is nothing in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.