Musker v Innovex (UK) Ltd [1997] UKEAT 1161_96_2010

EAT
Musker v Innovex (UK) Ltd
[1997] UKEAT 1161_96_2010 · 1997-07-21

JUDGE PETER CLARK:

This is an appeal by the Applicant employee before the Liverpool Industrial Tribunal, Miss Musker, sitting on 9 July 1996, against that Tribunal's unanimous decision to dismiss her complaint of unfair dismissal and breach of contract contained in an Originating Application dated 24 January 1996 on the ground that she was not dismissed by the Respondent employer, Innovex (UK) Ltd. Extended reasons for that decision are dated 2 September 1996.The Respondent carried on the business of providing personnel to the pharmaceutical industry.The Appellant commenced employment with the Respondent in July 1992 under the terms of a written employment contract dated 13 July 1992. She was assigned to a project with Dupont Multisource Projects ("Dupont").By a letter dated 19 June 1995 she was informed by the Respondent that the Dupont project was to end on 31 July 1995. That letter read in part:
"Please therefore accept this letter as notice that your position with Dupont Multisource Products, and therefore with Innovex UK Limited, will terminate on that date, Monday 31 July 1995, subject to an alternative position being secured with Innovex.
Following conversations between, yourself, Innovex Recruitment Services and myself, we hope that alternative employment will be secured. However, we have to make arrangements for the return of Dupont property, and of Innovex property in the event of another position not being secured."On 28 July 1995 she was offered a new project with a client, Euroderma Ltd (Euroderma). She accepted the offer and remained in the Respondent's employment until she commenced work on that project, following a period of sick leave, on 3 October 1995.On 19 October 1995 the Appellant telephoned the Respondent, so the Tribunal found, resigning from the Euroderma project. Subsequently she was offered by the Respondent, and accepted, work on a new project with Smith Kline Beecham. That work commenced on 20 November 1995. She was not paid by the Respondent between 27 October and 20 November 1995.The principal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Appellant had resigned simply from the Euroderma project on 19 October, or whether she had then resigned from the Respondent's employment.The Tribunal resolved that dispute in favour of the Respondent. It held that the employment was "project based", that is to say, when a project came to an end, in the absence of alternative employment being found, the employment with the Respondent came to an end.We have before us the documentary evidence which was before the Industrial Tribunal, together with the Chairman's Notes of Evidence.We remind ourselves that appeals to this Tribunal are confined to points of law, not fact.Ultimately the question for the Tribunal was "who really terminated the contract of employment?". Martin v Glynwed Distribution [1983] ICR 511, 519 G, per Sir John Donaldson M.R.There was here no question of constructive dismissal by the Respondent. The issue was a factual one, did the Appellant resign from her employment with the Respondent, or simply from the Euroderma project? There was a conflict of evidence on this point between the Appellant and Angela Thomas, the Respondent's Project Administrator, as to whether the Appellant was aware that by resigning from that project she was also resigning from the employment. The Industrial Tribunal preferred the evidence of Ms Thomas. That was a finding with which we cannot interfere. There was evidence to support the Tribunal's finding. In these circumstances we can see no grounds for interfering with the Tribunal's decision. The appeal must be dismissed.