Fletcher v F & L Accessories Ltd [1996] UKEAT 935_96_1612

EAT
Fletcher v F & L Accessories Ltd
[1996] UKEAT 935_96_1612 · 1996-12-16
MR JUSTICE LINDSAY: Mr Fletcher appeals against the order made by the Industrial Tribunal on 12 July 1996. He was the Applicant below and the Respondent was F & L Accessories Limited. He had a claim for unfair dismissal which was afflicted by the difficulty that he had not been continuously employed for not less than two years and so accordingly, unless he could bring himself within one of the relevant exceptions, he was liable to fall foul of Section 64(1)(a) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 .Mr Fletcher has not attended today to pursue his appeal. Doing the best we can to make enquiries, we have heard nothing to suggest that he has any particular difficulty in getting here. It is now 11.35 a.m. and we have deliberately given extra time to see if anything might be heard - nothing has, so we proceed with the matter which is listed as a Preliminary hearing.The relevant exceptions to Section 64(1)(a) of the Act were carefully gone through by the Industrial Tribunal which held that the principal reason why Mr Fletcher was dismissed was because he had written a letter and fallen foul of his employer. His employer, Mr Francis, decided on the spur of the moment to dismiss the Applicant. Mr Francis was asked to give his reasons and said that it was because he, Mr Fletcher, was inciting trouble on the shop floor. Shortly thereafter a letter dated 19 February 1996 was sent to the Appellant stating:
"... I confirm that I have no alternative but to terminate your employment from 4.00 pm today, due to your acrimonious behaviour within the working environment to numerous members of staff and your colleagues - inciting conflicts without proper cause."
The Industrial Tribunal took that to be the only or chief reason for the dismissal of Mr Fletcher. That did not fall within any of the statutory exceptions to Section 64(1)(a). The Tribunal considered those statutory exceptions and found none of them to be applicable. Accordingly in the Extended Reasons made public on 12 July the Tribunal found that the Applicant's claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed.The Notice of Appeal put in by Mr Fletcher raises a number of complaints which, were they made good, would suggest that there were serious shortcomings on the part of the employer. What he does not do is address what needs to be addressed, and that is what was the principal reason for his dismissal? There were a number of complaints he could have made against his employer and there were a number of matters which, if he is right, the employer might have had in mind as being a ground for dismissal to avoid complaint from Mr Fletcher, but none of these was found by the Industrial Tribunal to be the principal ground.Accordingly none of the exceptions to Section 64(1)(a) was made good and accordingly Mr Fletcher fell foul and in our view still falls foul of the difficulty that he had not been continuously employed for not less than two years.We have failed to find any error of law which, of course, is the sole matter at which we look in this matter and accordingly we dismiss the appeal.