[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Clark v. Costin (t/a LM Clothing) [2000] UKEAT 1415_99_1303 (13 March 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1415_99_1303.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1415_99_1303

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NEITHER PRESENT NOR BEING REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE COLLINS:

1. This is an appeal against the decision of an employment tribunal sitting at Manchester, their extended reasons having been given on 2 November 1999. The hearing had taken place on 6 July of that year but the letter requiring extended reasons had been filed away and not brought to the attention of the tribunal. They decided that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed but that she should receive no compensation.
2. The appellant had been an overlocking machinist employed by the respondent between September 1995 and 4 January 1999. In early December 1998, the respondent indicated that there might have to be staff reductions because her main customer was either taking away or reducing the amount of work. On 18 December 1998 while the appellant was away on holiday, the respondent sent her a letter saying that she was being dismissed without giving any explanation or inviting consultation.
3. It is not surprising in those circumstances that the tribunal held that she had been unfairly dismissed. But they awarded no compensation and the reason is that they agreed with the respondents that the appellant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and that even if a proper warning had been given and consultation taken place, the result would have been exactly the same.
4. There were a total of 3 temporary employees including the appellant. The tribunal found as a fact that they were the appropriate pool from whom redundancies could be drawn. In the event, the two others left voluntarily leaving the appellant the only one still employed. She was a part time member of staff on variable hours and the tribunal held that in all the circumstances it was perfectly reasonable to dismiss her and that would have been the result, even if the procedure has been carried out fairly. In those circumstances, it seems to us that this is a hopeless appeal. The appellant has not attended today to argue it or carry it forward and the appeal in these circumstances will be dismissed.