Berman v CAM Profiles Ltd [1993] UKEAT 795_92_2904

EAT
Berman v CAM Profiles Ltd
[1993] UKEAT 795_92_2904 · 1993-04-29
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): Mr Berman is the Appellant in this appeal under the preliminary hearing procedure. He appeals against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Bedford, on the 24th August 1992, under the Chairmanship of Mr R Smith.He had complained of unfair dismissal in a situation where redundancy had arisen. His employers were Cam Profiles Limited. Mr Berman is clearly a man skilled in computer programming. He has been good enough to present before us a curriculum vitae, of some three pages, which is impressive. He had worked for the Company for some eleven years or more, since April 1980; he was made redundant. He left their employment on the 20th September 1991. So that is from April 1980 until September 1991.One can only have sympathy with Mr Berman. This is a small Company. It was a situation where he was an Inspector and it might have been that he could have anticipated continued employment for some time. However, as we all know, recession has hit industry. This Company was relatively small it manufactured cams and it had the advantage, or the disadvantage, of one substantial customer to which it sold something like 50% of its production. Until the Spring of 1991 the Order Book was relatively healthy but it then took a nose dive. Economies were taken, with overtime, and part-timers were dismissed. There were two Inspectors, one who had had a far shorter period of service, some three years, and Mr Berman. There was a Supervisor, also qualified as an Inspector, who was a Mr Wray. It was clear to the Company that probably two out of the three would need to go.The company to which we have referred as the main customer was a Swedish company called Viscotherm. There had been some failures over the precision of cams in the past. Viscotherm, themselves, had installed at their premises a 3-axis co-ordinate measuring machine which was able instantly to ascertain whether the cams were strictly within a fine specification. Because of the success of that machine, Cam Profiles Limited purchased a similar machine. It was expensive but as Viscotherm were the life blood of their business, it was obviously a sensible thing to do and indeed it was vital that they should do it. This machine was brought into operation shortly before the annual break in July 1991. The question occurred, who should operate it? A young man, called Mr Coote, had recently finished his apprenticeship. He was skilled in all aspects of the operations of the Company and he had the necessary computer knowledge to operate the new machine, in fact he needed only some two day's training with the supplier. Since that time the machine has been operating successfully and Viscotherm have been satisfied, so the trade with that company was saved. The machine is intricate, sensitive and can test components of a substantial size, up to some 500 lbs. That was the situation on one side of the balance of the issue which management had to decide. Having stated that, the Tribunal then continue thus in the middle of paragraph 4:
"The applicant had no knowledge of it (that is the machine) and would have needed several months training before he could acquire the knowledge to operate it. There was also considerable doubt whether he was physically capable of handling notwithstanding that there was lifting equipment available. Mr Hickman, the managing director and the rest of management decided that the machine was beyond the applicant's capabilities. He had in the past a certain record of being rather accident prone."
The Order Book was substantially restored by September; Mr Coote was working the machine and it was no longer necessary for so many inspectors because the machine was doing the work. The decision was made that Mr Wray could manage on his own and the other two were surplus. They gave, in fact, Mr Berman insufficient notice but that was rectified later.The decision reached by the Tribunal was that the reason for the dismissal was redundancy, which was a genuine redundancy; they then examined the position under Section 57(3) and decided that the decision reached, and the way in which it was reached, was reasonable and proper and that this employer in these circumstances, at this time, reached a decision which was within the band of reasonable response of an employer in that situation.Mr Berman feels strongly about this matter. He has addressed us with reticence, he has impressed upon us that he is not a man to push himself, and perhaps he has not done himself justice with the Company over the years. The nub of his complaint is his criticism of that passage to which we have referred in paragraph 4. He submits that the evidence which was before the Tribunal could have been more detailed about his abilities, he points to his curriculum vitae and he submits that he could have learnt to manage this machine in a very much shorter time than the several months to which the Tribunal refer.We have pointed out to him that unless there is a point of law in which the Tribunal erred we can not help him. He can only appeal to this Tribunal on a point of law and having examined all the documentation, including the helpful letter written recently by Mr Berman, we are unable to ascertain any error of law in this decision. It follows therefore that there is only one course we can take which is to dismiss the appeal, which we do.