[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Michael Webb v. Pcl Security [2000] UKEAT 805_00_2211 (22 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/805_00_2211.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 805__2211, [2000] UKEAT 805_00_2211

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR G MORTON (Of Counsel) (prior to Adjournment) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme & (Post Adjournment) The Appellant In Person


 


JUDGE LEVY QC

1. On 27 January 2000 Mr Michael Andrew Webb submitted an Application to an Employment Tribunal on the grounds of health and safety discrimination. The manuscript grounds of his complaint suggested that there had been breaches by his employer of health and safety regulations. The IT3 submitted by the employer suggested that Mr Webb was dismissed because he had walked off site or the like.
2. There was a hearing before an Employment Tribunal on 17 April 2000 when the Appellant appeared in person and the financial director appeared for the Respondent. The Tribunal found unanimously that Mr Webb had been dismissed and sent its decision to the parties on 25 April 2000. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that Mr Webb's application should be dismissed because he had failed to prove that he had resigned in circumstances when mitigation was his entitlement, to, namely by reason of his employer's conduct in not providing him with a safe system of work.
3. From that decision Mr Webb appealed by the notice dated 26 May 2000. In his grounds of appeal, Ground 6 he said that a witness of the Respondent lied under oath when he stated that the Appellant was on 12 - 15 sites no more. It alleged that he was on 27 and the site owners, PCL logbooks can prove this. Also "no clock patrols, safety boots, hard hat, protective clothing ever issued on any site, no torch."
4. When the matter was called on for hearing this morning originally a Representative of the ELAAS Scheme appeared, and he made a submission to us that the Tribunal had failed to deal adequately or at all with the grounds of the health and safety complaint. We suggested if that was the case an amended Notice of Appeal should be drawn to reflect that and we adjourn for this amendment to be proposed which we understood he was willing to do.
5. When the Appeal was recalled for hearing, Mr Webb has appeared in person. He has told us that on the morning of the Employment Tribunal, the Respondents appeared late and they did not have the site log books which would have assisted him to prove his case. He said he had asked for them to be produced in the course of the hearing. He also said in the course of his address to us that his wife had sent a document to the hearing. The Extended Reasons are a little short. They do not state from whom the Tribunal had evidence or what documents they considered or were sought.
6. If, as we think is the case, the Appellant wishes to make allegations that he has not had a fair hearing because of the fact that matters which he was entitled to raise were not before the Tribunal and if there is evidence to suggest that, what he says needs to be put on Affidavit.
7. Therefore, what we propose to do is to adjourn this hearing today to come up before another Tribunal, on a later date, provided that within 28 days from today Mr Webb has put in an amended Notice of Appeal setting out, first, the ground identified by the ELAAS Representation, that the health and safety point was not considered below, and secondly, the facts and matters which he says were not considered or improperly considered by the Employment Tribunal.
8. When the Tribunal has received Mr Webb's Affidavit and an amended Notice of Appeal the Chairman of the Tribunal will be asked for his comments on the Affidavit then the matter can come back before a different panel for further consideration on a preliminary hearing.