[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Boxall v Durham County Council [1997] UKEAT 795_97_2210 (22 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/795_97_2210.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 795_97_2210

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in relation to an appeal against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Newcastle upon Tyne. Its decision was promulgated on 26 February 1997 and it held that the claims that Mr Boxall made under a number of headings against his employers relating to deduction of wages, were not justifiable and could not be sustained. He was claiming that the deduction of wages was a contravention of the Wages Act, the Employment Rights Act, Equal Pay Act, Sex Discrimination Act and Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome. In addition to that, he was ordered to pay £200 towards the Respondents' costs.

Quite shortly the facts are that Mr Boxall had been first of all a teacher, then a lecturer and latterly a supply teacher, employed by the Respondents over many years. He ceased to be a lecturer when the establishment he was working at, namely the Middleton St George College of Education closed on 31 August 1978. As a result of that closure he was entitled to be paid compensation, not only at the time of the closure but compensation on an annual basis until the date of his retirement. The calculation of the amount of that compensation was dependent upon an accurate computation of the wage he was entitled to at the time of his ceasing to be a lecturer.

Mr Boxall's first point was that the Respondents got that computation wrong and, as a result, the compensation paid to him over the years was wrong and amounted to a wrongful deduction of wages under the Wages Act. The Industrial Tribunal took as the first point to be decided, whether it was such a deduction under that statute. After a careful analysis of the definitions contained in that Act, they came to the conclusion that, by Section 7(2), compensation issues were not to be regarded as those relating to wages under the Act and accordingly, for that reason alone, claims under that statute could not be sustained. But thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal went on to consider whether the salary Mr Boxall had been paid (and that was the basis of the calculations) was right or wrong. After a detailed consideration of the factual position they came to the conclusion that they could not accept the evidence Mr Boxall has given. They refer to the fact that he was giving it 20 years after the event and say this:

"19 ... The evidence, including the applicant's oral evidence before us some twenty years later, was wholly unclear. On that basis alone, the applicant would have failed to make out his case."

That finding disposes of his allegation that there were errors in the computation of his salary as a senior lecturer. It also disposes of the main substance of the Appellant's claims.

There are claims also under the Sex Discrimination Act and under the Equal Opportunities Act, but again they were claims which were well out of time and for that reason disposed of by the Industrial Tribunal too.

There were the peripheral claims that the Appellant also made to the effect that the Respondents had failed to pay him in respect of work that he undertook for them as a supply teacher at two particular schools. One was the Close House School in Bishop Auckland and the other was a school at Witton Le Wear. Once more, the Industrial Tribunal came to findings about the evidence upon which the claimant based his case. They say this:

"45 ... The applicant did not have any documents with regard to any work at Witton le Wear School. We took into account the fact that, whenever he did work at a school, the applicant, having filled in his form, relied upon the Head Teacher to forward that form to the respondent and that a failure to do so would effectively prevent payment being made to the applicant."

They then go on to say:

"However, we found it quite extraordinary that the applicant had never kept any record of his supply teaching and when paid seemingly had no idea to which work any payment (over and above his usual long-term compensation) related."

They also refer to the fact that when this matter was touched upon in County Court proceedings, these two particular schools were not included in the list given by the Applicant in relation to matters which were germane to those proceedings. In one way or another the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion again, that there was wholly inadequate evidence to support the Appellant's claim in respect of these two items and accordingly, they dismissed it.

Those are questions of fact for the Tribunal to decide. So far as the analysis of the position over the Wages Act, that was a legal point but we are satisfied that the Tribunal directed itself on the appropriate law and on neither head do we see any grounds for disturbing the findings of the Industrial Tribunal.

We should say that, for understandable reasons, the Appellant, Mr Boxall, has not attended before us to assist us with the complicated facts in this case. But for all that the findings of the Industrial Tribunal are clear and we do not see any grounds for disturbing them.

Accordingly, at this particular stage the appeal is dismissed.