[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Rose v David Phillips & Partners [1996] UKEAT 527_96_1410 (14 October 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/527_96_1410.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 527_96_1410

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


JUDGE H J BYRT QC: This is an appeal on a preliminary point from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal, sitting in Liverpool, when they unanimously came to the decision that the Appellant had resigned and not been constructively dismissed.

The Tribunal has received a letter from Solicitors representing the Appellant, dated 8 October 1996 in which they state they are not going to be attending, nor is the Appellant. Accordingly, we must make a determination on this point without argument.

The Appellant was a Secretary employed by the Respondents, a firm of Solicitors. She had been in their employment since September 1988 and her employment ended on 30 October 1995.

In September or October, the Respondents initiated a new policy whereby anybody who had had time off sick was not going to be paid during the time they were away, but would be afforded the opportunity of working for extra hours during Saturdays in the month following. That policy was initiated in the October. The Appellant was away sick from 25 to 29 September and accordingly, was asked or required to work on two Saturdays in October.

The findings of the Industrial Tribunal were that she was willing to do that. The one condition she had was that the rule should apply to everybody. Unhappily, when she did attend for work on those two Saturdays, she found that she was the only person in the office and she immediately came to the conclusion that she had been 'picked on'.

The Industrial Tribunal came to a clear finding that she had not been 'picked on'. By reason of the fact that she was a secretary there was always typing available for her to do. So arrangements for her to work on the Saturday were easy to make and quickly made. For all or most other people, plans for them to work on a Saturday would have to be made in advance. Accordingly in October, it is not surprising that there was nobody else working on the Saturday, apart from the Appellant.

The Tribunal concluded that, although they found this altered policy was a fundamental breach of the Appellant's contract, that was not the reason why this lady tendered her resignation. She tendered her resignation because she felt she had been 'picked on' and so was, she felt, unfairly discriminated against.

The Tribunal rejected that contention. They found she had resigned and not been constructively dismissed. Essentially, the issues arising in this case are questions of fact which were for the Industrial Tribunal to determine, having seen the witnesses and heard their evidence. We cannot see a point of law which would enable us to disturb the finding of the Industrial Tribunal.

Accordingly, at this preliminary stage, we must dismiss the appeal.