[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lal v. Cooksons Precious Metals Ltd [2001] UKEAT 0853_01_3011 (30 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0853_01_3011.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 853_1_3011, [2001] UKEAT 0853_01_3011

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. This is an appeal by Mr Lal, the Applicant before the Birmingham Employment Tribunal sitting on 1 March 2001, against that Employment Tribunal's decision promulgated with extended reasons on 8 June dismissing his complaint of constructive unfair and wrongful dismissal brought against his former employer, the Respondents Cooksons Precious Metals.
2. The Respondents are suppliers of precious metals to the jewellery industry. The Appellant commenced employment with them on 8 July 1985 as a Production Operative. In 1995 he was promoted to chargehand. On 7 January 2000 he tendered his resignation, which was accepted by the Respondent. On 10 January he was offered and accepted a new position as a bus driver with West Midlands Transport. On 23 February 2000 he presented an Originating Application to the Employment Tribunal, drafted by solicitors, claiming that he had been constructively dismissed.
3. The burden of this case on constructive dismissal was that he had been subjected to foul language by his manager, Mr Cosgrove, and threatened with demotion from his position as chargehand. The last straw, as it was put in the particulars of his complaint, was an incident in early November 1999, when Mr Cosgrove swore at him, told him to get his act together and told him that he was in danger of losing his job.
4. The Employment Tribunal heard evidence from the Appellant only, at the end of which the Respondent's representative made a submission of no case to answer. The Employment Tribunal directed themselves, in accordance with the standard authorities on the point, that only in exceptional circumstances will it be right to stop a case at the end of the first party's evidence. However, bearing in mind that the onus lay on the Appellant to establish constructive dismissal they found (1) accepting the evidence given by the Appellant that the incidents complained of did not, individually or cumulatively, amount to a repudiatory breach by the Respondent of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and (2) even if it did, the Appellant had not acted promptly in accepting the breach. Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221.
5. It seems that the Appellant then dispensed with the services of his solicitor, Mr Roberts, and then wrote to the Employment Tribunal on 5 April 2001 complaining that he had been let down by his solicitor; that he had been shocked that his witness statement had been disclosed to the Respondent before the hearing; and that a letter had been produced at the hearing on which his signature had been forged and that he had wanted to tell the Employment Tribunal how managers and team leaders at the Respondent fiddled the books.
6. The Chairman, Mr Parkin, treated that letter as an application for review and, by a decision dated 8 June 2001 dismissed it summarily on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success for the reasons which he gave.
7. Thereafter, on 27 June, the Appellant launched this appeal which comes before us today for Preliminary Hearing to determine whether or not any arguable point of law is raised. This morning the Appellant has failed to attend and has given no explanation for his non-attendance. It is one hour after the time appointed for this hearing. In these circumstances we have proceeded to consider the case on the papers.
8. The Appellant's grounds of appeal disclose no point of law, let alone an arguable point of law. He complains again that he was misrepresented by his solicitor and makes other observations which are not to the point. In the absence of any arguable point of law we are obliged to and do dismiss this appeal.