[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Argos Distribution Ltd v Klieve [1997] UKEAT 815_97_2407 (24 July 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/815_97_2407.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 815_97_2407

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS L ALDRIDGE (Personnel Manager) Argos Distributors Ltd 71-77 Newport Street Bolton BL1 1PD
For the Respondent	RESPONDENT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE CLARK: The Applicant before the Liverpool Industrial Tribunal, Mr Klieve, was employed by the Respondent, Argos, as a Stockroom Supervisor at their St Helen's stores from 1 August 1995 until his resignation which took effect on 23 November 1996.

Following termination of the employment he complained to the Industrial Tribunal of unlawful deductions from his wages. On 22 May 1997 the matter came before a Chairman, Mr D Reed, sitting alone, for determination of a preliminary issue, namely, whether the Applicant had presented his complaint to the Industrial Tribunal within the primary limitation period of 3 months.

The Chairman decided that he had. In Extended Reasons dated 16 June 1997 the Chairman accepted the Applicant's evidence, first, that the last deduction complained of occurred on 29 November 1996, and secondly that he had faxed his Originating Application to the Liverpool Industrial Tribunal on Thursday 27 February 1996, that is, within time.

The copy Form IT1 has been date stamped Monday 3 March 1997 by the Industrial Tribunal. It is plain from the copy Form IT1 before us that it was sent by fax, although the send date has been cut off in photocopying and is indecipherable.

It seems from enquiries made at the Regional Office that there was no record of when the faxed IT1 was received on the Tribunal's fax log.

Against the Chairman's decision Argos now appeal. Miss Aldridge, Argos's Personnel Manager argues that the only evidence before the Industrial Tribunal Chairman as to the date of receipt of the Form IT1 is the date stamp the 3 March. That is not correct. The Chairman had the direct oral evidence of the Applicant that he had faxed the document on 27 February 1996. The Tribunal fax log was inconclusive. It did not record receipt of the fax on any particular date. The date stamp may or may not have been applied on a date later than the date of receipt.

The short answer to this appeal is that Industrial Tribunals are charged with finding the facts. Our function is to consider appeals on points of law. There is no point of law disclosed in this appeal. The Chairman decided the factual issue in favour of the Applicant by accepting his evidence. That is an end to the matter. There are no grounds for us to interfere with that decision and accordingly this appeal must be dismissed.