[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Williams v. Pall Mall Services Group [1999] UKEAT 482_99_1510 (15 October 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/482_99_1510.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 482_99_1510

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A AKINOSHUN (Representative) Veasem 501Beveridge Court Saunders Way London SE28 8EA


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK:

1. The first question in this case is whether or not the Appellant, Mrs Williams had been dismissed by her then employer the Respondent Pall Mall Services Group. By her originating application presented on the 4 August 1998 she contended that her employment commenced in June 1997 and ended in dismissal by her area Manager, Ms Wendy Williams at a meeting held on the 27 May 1998. Not having completed two years qualifying service, she contended that her dismissal was automatically unfair for a Health & Safety reason under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. By their Notice of Appearance the Respondent denied that the Appellant had been dismissed; they contended that she had walked out of a meeting on the 27 May indicating her intention to leave her employment. It is common ground that she never returned to work after that date.
2. The matter came on for hearing before an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) under the Chairmanship of Ms Tess Gill on the 12 & 13 November 1998. By a decision with extended reasons dated the 21 January 1999 that Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was not dismissed; accordingly her complaint failed at the first hurdle. They accepted Ms Williams account as to what happened at the meeting on the 27 May 1998 and rejected that of the Appellant. Against that decision she now appeals.
3. Her submissions have been presented this morning with great charm by Mr Akinoshun but his intention in coming here today was to argue that the Tribunal had erred in law in failing to properly interpret the provisions of section 100 of the 1996 Act. We pressed him on the preliminary question as to where the Tribunal could be said to have erred in law in concluding that the Appellant was not dismissed by the Respondent, a necessary prerequisite before getting onto consider what was the reason for such dismissal. Mr Akinoshun acknowledged his difficulty. There was a stark conflict of evidence between the main protagonists before the Tribunal. The Appellant contended that she had been instantly dismissed by Ms Williams at the meeting and that the reason for that instant dismissal was that she refused to work rotas involving seven consecutive days working which she regarded as a risk to her health. Ms Williams, the Manager on the other hand told the Tribunal that the reason for the meeting on the 27 May was that the Appellant's absence record was giving cause for concern and it was whilst discussing that matter that the Appellant walked out. Quite simply this case turned on an issue of fact. The facts were decided against the Appellant. Appeals to this Tribunal are limited to correcting errors of law. There is no error of law that we can discern in the Tribunal's conclusion that the Appellant was not dismissed and consequently this Appeal must be dismissed.