 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Mitel Semiconductor Ltd v Stimpson [1998] UKEAT 895_98_0110 (1 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/895_98_0110.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 895_98_110, [1998] UKEAT 895_98_0110 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON
MR J C SHRIGLEY
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellants | MR H CHESTERFIELD (Solicitor) EEF Western Association Engineers House The Promenade Clifton Down Bristol BS8 3NB |
LORD JOHNSTON: This is a preliminary hearing at the instance of the employer, Mitel Semiconductor Ltd, against a finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the respondent, Mrs P Stimpson, had been unfairly dismissed in a redundancy situation.
Mr Chesterfield, who appeared for the employer, pointed to certain aspects of the findings of the Industrial Tribunal which revealed firstly that there was a genuine redundancy situation and that secondly the company was seeking volunteers in the hope of limiting compulsory redundancy. The issue seems to turn upon whether or not the respondent was fully aware that she could apply for vacancies that were emerging though voluntary redundancies and undergo a trial period in any such job upon the transfer being effective. The tribunal appear to have found that she was not so aware as to the right of a trial period and that accordingly categorised the otherwise admitted dismissal on a voluntary basis as unfair.
Suffice it to say that we are satisfied that it is sufficiently unclear at this stage from the evidence that necessarily the respondent did not know that she was entitled to a trial period, and that in any event upon the findings of fact, her application for voluntary redundancy was remotely connected with that particular aspect of the case. In these circumstances we consider that there is an arguable case to go forward to a full hearing in that the Industrial Tribunal may have misdirected itself in the general application of s. 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and will accordingly so order.