Appeal No.	 EAT/134/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 25 March 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE N BUTTER QC
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR K M YOUNG CBE

MS M M VILAREAL-DAGRACA	APPELLANT

BEXLEY COLLEGE	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR JOHN BOWERS
(of Counsel)
Appearing under the
Employment Law Appeal
Advice Scheme	

	JUDGE N BUTTER:     This case is listed as the preliminary hearing of an appeal in respect of a decision of a Tribunal at London (South) on 22 August 1997.  The extended reasons were sent out on 11 November 1997.

	If today this Tribunal considers that there is a reasonably arguable point of law then it will direct that the matter go forward to a full hearing.  If it decides there is no reasonably arguable point of law then it is the duty of the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal.

	The Chairman sat alone in order to decide a preliminary issue, namely, whether in the light of Section 197 (1) of the 1996 Act, the Applicant (now the Appellant) qualified for the right not to be unfairly dismissed and, at the same time, the Chairman sat to determine the Applicant’s breach of contract complaint.  He heard evidence and he considered a number of documents and then in the extended reasons set out the facts quite briefly.  The Applicant had applied for a post of lecturer with the Respondent.  The post had been advertised as being for a fixed term.  She was interviewed on 26 April 1994 and was subsequently offered the job.  The offer was for a contract of employment to commence on 1 September 1994.

	In a letter of 27 May 1994 the Respondent’s representative, in replying to a query by the Applicant, said:

“with regard to termination of the contract at the expiry of its fixed term, paragraph 4(a) of the contract will apply.”

	This was a mistake for 4(d) of the contract and those two terms are inconsistent.  The Chairman went on to review the facts, pointed out that the Applicant commenced employment on 1 September 1994 and by a letter dated 18 April 1996 she was reminded that her fixed term contract ended on 31 August 1996 and was informed that it would not be renewed.

	The arguments which were presented to the Chairman are set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the extended reasons.  The Chairman, having considered the arguments expressed his main conclusion in this way:

“I am satisfied that reference to paragraph 4(a) in the letter of 27 May 1994 was an error and should have been a reference to paragraph 4(d).  I am satisfied from the evidence that the Applicant was well aware that it was an error and she was well aware that it was a fixed term contract and indeed, the contract which she signed on 27 May 1994 (ie the same day as she received the letter from the Respondent) clearly states that it is a fixed term contract expiring on 31 August 1996.”

	The Chairman goes on to say:

“On the facts I am satisfied that the Applicant was employed under a contract of employment for a fixed period of two years from 1 September 1994 to 31 August 1996.  Accordingly, her breach of contract complaint is not well-founded and fails.”

	And similarly, her claim in relation to unfair dismissal must fail.  

	The Tribunal today has considered the arguments presented by Mr Bowers, acting under the ELAAS scheme for the Appellant, but is clearly of the opinion that there is, in truth, no reasonably arguable point of law to go forward.

	The Tribunal below was fully entitled to reach the decision that it did on the facts before it and we would do no service to the Appellant by allowing this appeal to go forward to a full hearing.

	In these circumstances and for these reasons we are unanimously of the view that the appeal fails and must be dismissed.