 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Sphinx Level Distribution Ltd v Hancock [1993] UKEAT 46_92_0211 (2 November 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/46_92_0211.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 46_92_0211, [1993] UKEAT 46_92_211 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J BULL QC
MR A FERRY MBE
MR A D SCOTT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR M WEST
Personnel Consultant
Peninsula Business Services
Stanford House
361/365 Chapel Street
Manchester
M3 5JY
For the Respondent MR P D HANCOCK
Lay Representative
JUDGE BULL QC: This is an appeal by Sphinx Level Distribution Ltd against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Reading at a Preliminary Hearing on 11 November 1991 by which it decided that the Applicant had 2 years' continuous service with his employers which is of course a necessary pre-condition for the Industrial Tribunal to assume jurisdiction to entertain his claim for unfair dismissal.
The Appellant employers appeal upon the basis first that this was a case of summary dismissal. The Respondent employee contends that the words used at the time of dismissal showed beyond doubt that this was a case of dismissal with one month's notice but that as a salesman he was not required to work out that notice but was given money in lieu and the effective date of termination is the date on which that notice expired.
The Appellant employers further attack the decision of the Industrial Tribunal upon the ground that in paragraph 3 of their decision they fell into error in computing the date of the commencement of employment which they found to be 1 May, the employers asserting that the only possible dates consistent with the evidence are either 5th or 8th May, 1989.
The second, and in the employers' submission, critical issue to be determined in calculating the length of employment was the effective date of termination. There is here wide divergence between the parties upon the proper interpretation of the documents before the Industrial Tribunal. This divergence is aggravated by an acrimonious dispute as to which documents were in fact put before the Tribunal, and sadly we are unable to resolve that dispute. We are left in doubt as to which documents were considered by that Tribunal and included in the Bundle "R.1.".
The Industrial Tribunal did not have the advantage which we have enjoyed, of assistance in considering the considerable volume of case law upon the proper construction of section 55 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and in particular section 55(4) of that Act. The reasons as set out by the Industrial Tribunal are in abbreviated form and unfortunately because neither party requested it, we do not have the advantage of the transcription of the Chairman's Notes of the evidence given by the Applicant, Mr Hancock.
Although we are confident that the Industrial Tribunal bore in mind section 55 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 there is no reference to it in their decision. We are therefore left in doubt both as to the facts and documents found to have been proved before the Industrial Tribunal and also as to the way in which they applied the law to the facts which they found in order to decide the dates of commencement and termination of the Applicant's employment.
For these reasons we are driven with great reluctance to the conclusion that the only course open to us is to allow the appeal and remit the case to the same Industrial Tribunal for a complete re-hearing of this preliminary point on jurisdiction and we so decide.