[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Special Metals (Wiggins) v. Moore [2001] UKEAT 0738_01_2910 (29 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0738_01_2910.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 0738_01_2910, [2001] UKEAT 738_1_2910

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR ALASTAIR GLOVER Company Secretary Special Metals Wiggin Ltd Holmer Road Hereford HR4 9SL


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC

1. This is an Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Special Metals (Wiggins) against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Hereford. By a decision of that Tribunal dated 2 May following a hearing, which according to the decision was upon 22 March, although we have been told in fact the hearing extended over a day and a half,. the Tribunal held unanimously that the applicant, Mr Moore had been constructively and unfairly dismissed and ordered payment of compensation in the sum of £7,959. Against that decision the employer appeals.
2. Essentially the grounds of appeal relate to two of the three bases on which the Tribunal held that Mr Moore had been entitled to walk out. The argument has largely revolved around the third of those. Taken briefly, Mr Moore was a shift worker, working some mornings, some afternoons, some nights. It was felt by a number of his co-workers that he was manipulating the shift system for his own advantage because he had another outside gardening business. There were tensions at work as a result of this. A number of incidents occurred in relation to Mr Moore which formed the basis of the first of the three limbs of complaint which it is said entitled him to walk out. There was then a second item which related to an e-mail about Mr Moore which had been sent by a Mr McLellan, which was intended for a Mr Cotterell, who was Mr Moore's supervisor. As a result of that e-mail a grievance procedure was initiated. Before that grievance procedure had come to its end, Mr Moore left. He took the view that in effect he was being fobbed off, as indeed the Tribunal found to be the case.
3. The company takes issue with the way in which the Tribunal dealt in particular with the third of those matters, namely, the grievance procedure. The company takes issue in particular with the way in which the Tribunal appears to have dismissed (and indeed it was barely mentioned) the evidence of the personnel manager dealing with the grievance procedure.
4. Suffice it to say at this stage it seems to us that there are matters which can properly be investigated in relation to the findings made by the Tribunal about the grievance procedure and the way in which it worked, or did not work in this case. It is something which should be investigated at a Full Hearing because it is arguable that given the evidence before the Tribunal the findings made in relation to the operation of the grievance procedure were perverse.
5. It does not follow, we should add, that the Appellant would be 'home and dry' even if it succeeded on that point, because the Tribunal found that there were three separate matters and even without the grievance procedure it would have been possible and proper for Mr Moore to treat himself as constructively dismissed, but there is an argument for saying that once Mr Moore had embarked upon the grievance procedure he should not thereafter have walked out leaving, what the Appellants say was a perfectly proper grievance procedure, in mid stream.
6. In the circumstances we take the view that this is a matter which should go for a Full Hearing. Given the nature of the criticisms of the Tribunal it will be necessary to have Chairman's notes of evidence. We have considered whether it would be practicable to limit those notes of evidence by reference to topics, but we doubt whether that would be practicable. We also rather doubt whether limiting the evidence by topics would reduce the burden on the Tribunal having to provide the notes of evidence. We can however, dispense altogether with the evidence of Mr Morgan Williams, superintendent for flat products.
7. It follows that the matter will go for Full Hearing. That notes of evidence will be directed in respect of Mr Moore, the Applicant below, Respondent here, Mr Robert Hunt, the personnel manager, Mr Robert McLellan, the general manager and Mr Terrance Cotterell, the area supervisor. We will list it as Category C and at the moment we take the view that the appropriate listing time is half a day. The automatic directions will apply in relation to skeleton arguments.