[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lazenbury v. Frederick Thomas (ESM) Ltd [2001] UKEAT 818_01_1211 (12 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/818_01_1211.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 818_01_1211, [2001] UKEAT 818_1_1211

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC:

1. An Employment Tribunal received a complaint on 13 December 2000 from Mr Brian Lazenbury, the Appellant, claiming breach of contract, non-payment for work done under the Wages Act and unfair dismissal. He gave dates of his employment in box 4, 29 May 2000 to 20 September 2000. In their IT3 the Respondent to his application, received by the Employment Tribunal on 4 January 2001, dealt with his complaints. As to the breach of contract the Respondent said that he had been given four weeks' pay in lieu of notice. As to the Wages Act claim, the Respondent said that payment in full had been made. On unfair dismissal the IT3 reads:

"The Applicant does not have the requisite qualifying period of employment to bring this claim and we submit it should be struck down as being an abuse of the process or unreasonable. In any event the Applicant knew and agreed to his position being temporary and flexible according to our needs. As a result of changing workloads and re-organisation we no longer had the capacity to retain the Applicant's services and his dismissal was therefore fair.

We resist the Applicant's claims on the above basis."

2. There was a hearing before a Tribunal sitting at Ashford, Kent on 30 April 2001. The Applicant appeared in person. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that

"At the effective date of termination of his employment the Applicant did not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed. The Applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal is dismissed."

3. In paragraph 3 of the Extended Reasons earlier the Chairman had set out the effect of section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Decision reads:

"3. The Applicant referred to a passage in a booklet published by the Department of Trade & Industry entitled 'Individual Rights of employees'. The Applicant referred to page 9 of that booklet which deals with dismissals for asserting a statutory employment right. However, the Applicant informed the Tribunal that he was not claiming that he had asserted an entitlement to a statutory right before he was dismissed. He added that he had no reason to do so as his relationship with the Respondent was reasonably harmonious. He submitted that he was unaware of the provisions governing the assertion of a statutory right. Had he known of those provisions he would have asserted a statutory right prior to his dismissal. He argued that this intention was sufficient to bring his case within Section 104 [of] the Act, which deals with the assertion of a statutory right."

4. The remaining paragraphs of the Extended Reasons explain why the Tribunal was unable to accept his submissions. We found the reasons given by the Tribunal comprehensive and correct. From that decision the Appellant has appealed. He has attempted to persuade us with reference to a departmental handbook that he had a statutory right such as that which the Tribunal found he did not have. There is no point, in our judgment, to go forward for a full hearing. His argument is simply wrong.
5. In these circumstances we dismiss his appeal at this stage.