Appeal No.	 EAT/412/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 31 January 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMITH QC
MR J R CROSBY
MR P DAWSON OBE

MRS V HARMON T/A HIGH CROSS RESIDENTIAL HOME	APPELLANT

MISS G J SHAW	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT	

JUDGE SMITH:-

1.	This is an application by Mrs Harmon for leave to proceed to a full hearing of an appeal against the decision of an Employment Tribunal, the Chairman sitting alone, held at Norwich on 21st September 1998, of which Extended Reasons were sent to the parties on 19th October 1999, whereby the Employment Tribunal held that Mrs Harmon had unlawfully deducted £448.90, from the pay of Miss Shaw, the Applicant before the Employment Tribunal, together with notice pay at £60.30, which the Employment Tribunal held to be due.  The Employment Tribunal accordingly ordered Mrs Harmon to pay £509.20 to Miss Shaw.  Both parties had appeared in person before the Employment Tribunal.  

2.	We have heard just this moment, that Mrs Harmon, having this morning turned up to argue her application for leave to proceed to a full hearing of her appeal, has been advised by ELAAS and has been given certain advice as a result of which Mrs Harmon has apparently accepted the advice that she has been given and has not sought to come forward and argue the matter before us today.  In those circumstances, we can deal with the matter fairly shortly.  

3.	It appears from the findings of the Chairman that he had to decide a conflict of evidence between Mrs Harmon and Miss Shaw, the Applicant, as to what sum of money Miss Shaw was entitled to be paid when she worked as a care assistant at Mrs Harmon’s residential care home from the 26th June 1998 for a period of 9 days whilst the Harmons were on holiday.  

4.	Miss Shaw had been employed there as a care assistant for some time and what the Chairman was concerned to decide arose from a conflict that unfortunately had arisen between the two ladies as to the terms of Miss Shaw’s employment during those last few days of her employment whilst the Harmons were on holiday.  What the Chairman found was that there had been an offer by Mrs Harmon to pay £270.00 all in for that week on a full time and live-in basis to Miss Shaw but Miss Shaw had rejected that offer. The Chairman then found that Miss Shaw had, apparently, on his findings, spoken to Mr Harmon and asked to be paid £3.35 per hour, the hourly rate, for all the hours which she in fact worked when the two residents concerned were awake until they actually went to bed at night.  Mr Harmon had said he would talk that offer over with his wife and the Chairman found that on the 4th June Mr Harmon had told Miss Shaw that her offer was acceptable, and thereafter, what happened was, according to the findings of the Chairman, that on 26th June, the Harmons left for their holiday and Miss Shaw resided on the premises until midnight on 4th July.  According to the Chairman’s findings, she kept a record of the hours she claimed to have worked and gave a list to the Harmons when they arrived back from their holiday, claiming 134 hours altogether totalling £448.90.

5.	There then followed a heated dispute between the two women on the 6th July, and ultimately, the Chairman found, in paragraph 7, that he preferred Miss Shaw’s account of the matter and on the basis that she had been looking after these two elderly residents single handed, he concluded that her claim had been made out to his satisfaction and he preferred her evidence to that of Mrs Harmon, awarded her £448.90, and pronounced himself satisfied that she was entitled to one week’s notice under the relevant provision of the 1996 Act, making a total award of £509.20.  

6.	The Chairman recorded that he had not only heard oral evidence from Miss Shaw and from Mr and Mrs Harmon but that also that there had been before him a statement from Mrs Rodgers-Daymond and another witness which had been produced to him together with a bundle of documents prepared by Miss Shaw.  In the light of that evidence, the Chairman reached the conclusion he did.  What Mrs Harmon really wishes to argue, as appears from what we interpret as being a notice of appeal together with a supporting letter is that really the Chairman reached a conclusion with which she did not agree, and against the weight of the evidence.  

7.	However, in our judgment, there was ample material before the Chairman which entitled  him to reach the decision that he did and no doubt for that reason, we find that Mrs Harmon had no doubt been correctly advised that this is not a matter that can give rise to any arguable ground of law against the decision of the Chairman and so accordingly the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.