 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lumsdaine v E W (Holdings) Ltd [1993] UKEAT 615_92_2602 (26 February 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/615_92_2602.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 615_92_2602 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC
MRS M EXLEY
MR W MORRIS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR M MORRIS
(Lay Representative)
JUDGE HARGROVE QC: What has happened in this case is that Mr Lumsdaine was employed and his employment was coming up to a two year period. He made what was, on any view of the matter, a minor error, he was working unpaid, voluntarily in an area in which he was not entirely familiar. No step was taken for a period of some 3 months. We are told, of course we have heard no evidence, that a new manager was brought in and very shortly afterwards Mr Lumsdaine was asked to a meeting, at very short notice on the 17th July, where he gave an explanation of the way in which the minor paper error had occurred. He believed that the person hearing his explanation accepted it. That person left, took a lengthy telephone call, returned and dismissed him. He was three weeks short of the two year qualifying period. What he has through Mr Morris, who has presented his case with great ability, asked us to do, is to say that the effective date of termination ought to be the lawful date of termination which would be a further three weeks on from the one week that the Industrial Tribunal found was the correct week of notice thereby bringing him in the two year period. Unfortunately two decisions stand in our way, the first is Staff v. Shaftesbury Society [1982] CA, the second is a decision of another Division of this Tribunal Cort (Robert) & Son Ltd v. Charman [1981], those case held, and I summarise them: that even if a dismissal is a dismissal not in accordance with a contract, and as indeed in this case, not even in accordance with the disciplinary procedures, it is still an effective date of termination within Section 55 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
In those circumstances and with very great regret because it seems to us highly undesirable that employers can evade the Act by utilising "tactical" dismissals for no good cause, we are obliged to order that no further step be taken on this appeal.