[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ramage v. Unitrition International Ltd [1999] UKEAT 433_99_2107 (21 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/433_99_2107.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 433_99_2107

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR BRUCE CARR (Of Counsel) Instructed By: Mr N Johnson Messrs Rowley Ashworth Solicitors 247 The Broadway Wimbledon London SW19 1SE


 


JUDGE CLARK: By an Originating Application completed by the Appellant with the assistance of his trade union representative on 27 August 1998, he complained of unlawful deductions from his wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. By Further and Better Particulars of his complaint dated 19 November 1998, the Appellant alleged that there was a failure by the Respondent to make premium payments for weekend working as a result of a unilateral change in the shift pattern. The claim was resisted.

1. The matter came before a Chairman, Mr A J Simpson, sitting alone at the Leeds Employment Tribunal on 4 January 1999. Having elicited from the Appellant's representative, Mr Waumsley of AEEU, that the complaint involved an alleged breach of the contract of employment made between the parties the Chairman held that since the Appellant was still in the Respondent's employ, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain claims for breach of contact was limited to claims following termination of employment, the Tribunal was not able to consider the merits of the application. It was therefore dismissed by a decision with Extended Reasons dated 5 February 1999.
2. Against that decision the Appellant now appeals. The short point taken by Mr Carr is that very often a complaint of unlawful deductions from wages under Part II of the 1996 Act will be based on an allegation that the employer has, in breach of contract, failed to pay wages due to the employee. That does not convert the claim into solely one of breach of contract in respect of which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
3. In our view that point is plainly arguable as the Respondent accepts in its PHD form. It should proceed to a full appeal hearing. For that purpose we give the following directions; the case will be listed for two hours (not before me), Category C. Exchange of Skeleton Arguments to take place between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those Skeleton Arguments to be sent timeously to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.