[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Smoke House Inns Ltd v Head [1997] UKEAT 101_97_2104 (21 April 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/101_97_2104.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 101_97_2104

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: An application was received by an Industrial Tribunal from Mr Dennis Frank Head on 26 July 1996. He complained of constructive unfair dismissal, illegal deduction of wages and breach of contract. There was a hearing of his complaint by an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Bury St Edmunds on 18 September 1996 and 13 November 1996. Its decision was sent to the parties on 20 November 1996. The unanimous decision of the Industrial Tribunal was that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed and they dealt with the award.

Thereafter there was an application to the Industrial Tribunal by Smoke House Inns Ltd, the Respondent, who is the Appellant here ("the Company"). The Company applied for a review on 3 December 1996 of the Decision sent out on 20 November 1996. The application ran to many pages. The decision on the review was sent to the parties on 12 December 1996. The application was reviewed, both as to the complaint of unfair dismissal and it was stated that an application to review the quantum could be made before 4 January 1997. The facts behind the application was that the Applicant, who was a gardener, was said to have taken unofficially time off for tea breaks and failed to respond to warnings and the like.

In the Decision after the initial hearing, the evidence presented was fully analysed and considered by the Tribunal. It found against the Company. In the application to review, there was an attempt to present further evidence which could have been presented at the first hearing and quite properly the Industrial Tribunal refused to consider it for the reasons given.

In particular on the review the Tribunal said this in paragraphs 3 and 4:

"The tribunal formed the view that Mr Warin's method of oral communication lacked the clarity that would be necessary for dealing with any employee and more particularly with manual workers. What he intended to communicate was very often not understood clearly by the listener. The alleged verbal warnings (paragraph 23a) and the handling of the "Appeal" (paragraph 23d) are examples of this.

The request to review the decision in the main reasserts evidence which was given to the tribunal."

Further on in the review, the Tribunal deals with that and in paragraph 8 the Tribunal says this:

"The respondent has produced no evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing and has raised no matters which were not canvassed at the hearing in some detail. In fact, by now producing written evidence from the gardeners, that it was common practice for them to have an 'unauthorised' tea break for a period of two years or so, does little to support the respondents' contention that, without any written embargo, it was appropriate to dismiss the applicant. It is of note that none of the statements by the other gardeners give any indication that they were aware of any serious oral warning having been given about the practice of taking unauthorised tea breaks until the events of 1 March 1996."

The Notice of Appeal comes by way of a letter dated 12 December 1996 which runs for some pages. We have all looked carefully at what Mr Warin, the Managing Director of the Company, has said in that lengthy letter. Essentially what he is again trying to do is to get a re-hearing on the facts. Both parties were entitled to and had a day in Court. If a Tribunal analyses the facts and the evidence put before them and reaches a conclusion which the Tribunal is entitled to reach, this Court cannot interfere with this Tribunal.

None of us see any point of law arising on this appeal and therefore it is appropriate that we dismiss it at this stage.