[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Tucker v. Rai (t/a Rushcliffe Care) [2001] UKEAT 1013_00_0902 (9 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1013_00_0902.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1013_00_0902, [2001] UKEAT 1013__902

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A FREER Solicitor Messrs Pattinson & Brewer Solicitors 71 Kingsway London WC2B 6ST


 


MISS RECORDER SLADE QC

1. This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mrs Tucker from the dismissal by an Employment Tribunal of her claim for breach of contract. The grounds of appeal are that the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that she had been given notice of termination of her employment at a meeting on 29 October 1999, and was therefore not entitled to the statutory minimum period of notice or contractual notice which she claimed.
2. In our view the Tribunal's decision on this point does disclose an arguable error, particularly in the light of the fact that the Respondents themselves asserted in their Notice of Appearance that at a staff meeting in late October, staff were told that all jobs would be safeguarded, and that no redundancy would be offered as Rushcliffe Care were already expanding its workforce, not downsizing it, and in the light of the factual finding that at the 29 October meeting, two options were given to the staff, neither of which constituted a notice of dismissal.
3. In our view, it is arguable that there was an error of law in the Tribunal's holding that what was said at the meeting in October constituted a notice of dismissal. In addition, we think that there is force in the points taken in the grounds of appeal that for there to be notice of termination, that notice has to be for a certain date. For all those reasons we think this is a fit case to go forward for a full hearing.