[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Matthews v Pearl Assurance Plc [1997] UKEAT 552_97_2210 (22 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/552_97_2210.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 552_97_2210

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR M HALL-SMITH (of Counsel) Tarbox Robinson & Partners 25 Maxwell Road Northwood Middx HA6 2XY


 


JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC This is a preliminary hearing in relation to an appeal against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal Chairman sitting alone at Reading. His decision was promulgated on 5 March 1997 and it held that Mr Matthews, the employee, had not been dismissed by the Respondent and therefore he could not contend that he had been unfairly dismissed. Mr Matthews appeals.

Quite shortly the facts are that Mr Matthews had been employed by the Respondents since 1963 and latterly as a Sales Manager. In late 1995 the organisation engaged in a restructuring process with the result that Mr Matthews' position was disappearing. In 1996 negotiations took place between Mr Matthews and management as to what his new role might be and he was offered the alternative of taking an early release date with voluntary retirement. In due course it was made plain by Mr Matthews that if he was to take an early release date he would want to stay on until the end of December 1996, but preferably until May 1997 because that would affect his pension rights.

The alternative job, offered to him was becoming an Area Manager in the new set up and, at the end of the day, Mr Matthews opted for the early release. Having made that option, the Respondents told him that the date he would be released from would be 23 August 1996 and not the dates that Mr Matthews had wanted.

In coming to his conclusions, the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal who heard this matter concluded that this was a situation in which Mr Matthews plainly had a choice. If he did not like to accept the date he had been given for his early release, he could have accepted the job of Area Manager. But Mr Hall-Smith's submissions have been based on the issue as to whether the job of Area Manager was a reasonable alternative and, unless it was, he submitted there was no reasonable choice presented to Mr Matthews. It is arguable that the Chairman of the Tribunal never assessed whether the job of Area Manager was a reasonable alternative. There was plenty of evidence in this matter. We have been referred to a letter of 17 May 1996 in which one Manager wrote to another saying that, plainly since Mr Matthews was not suitable for the position of Area Manager, as well as other options, it was sensible to give him his early release. That would be evidence which is clearly relevant on this issue.

We think that there is a point here for a full hearing to consider, namely whether the offer of Area Manager was a reasonable alternative and whether the Chairman made sufficient findings of fact to establish that point in his decision. Dependent on that would be the issue of dismissal.