Maciejna v London Borough Of Lambeth [1997] UKEAT 1188_96_3004

EAT
Maciejna v London Borough Of Lambeth
[1997] UKEAT 1188_96_3004 · 1997-04-30

JUDGE D M LEVY QC :

Ms Janina Barbara Maciejna ("the Appellant") appeals against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) on 7 and 8 August 1996. The Tribunal had three matters to consider:(1) was the Appellant unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, London Borough of Lambeth;(2) was she entitled to arrears of holiday pay and(3) was she entitled to mileage payments?All these were resolved against the Appellant and, quite understandably, she is very upset by the decision and appeals against it. It has to be said that she had a lengthy employment with the Council. She commenced her employment on 20 February 1967 and it ended at the end of May 1995.In the course of the last years of her employment she had gone through what we may shortly call the disciplinary process, and in essence she was dismissed for a failure to co-operate and to obey orders.In the appeal before us today, the Appellant has appeared in person and has made her points cogently and clearly. She has seen the representative of the ELAAS scheme today, but he has felt unable to assist her. Of three points on which she has addressed us, the first was that the grievance procedure of the Respondents was not fully played out in her case. She tells us that she had a union representation, but they apparently, did not give her the assistance which she sought. That is dealt with, to some extent, in the Decision of the Industrial Tribunal. We find it dealt with at the end of paragraph 20 of the Reasons given in the Decision of the Tribunal where they say:
"There was nothing to prevent the Applicant from utilising the Respondent's grievance procedure. The Tribunal noted that at the hearing before the Disciplinary Panel the Applicant did not specify the procedure which it was alleged had been breached. At the hearing before the Tribunal she made a half-hearted attempt to suggest that there was a breach of an equal opportunities procedure."
The Appellant before us today has attempted to spell out what went wrong with the grievance procedure and we are not clear whether or not the evidence, which she tried to produce to us, was or was not before the Tribunal, but whether or not the grievance procedures were fully explored by either the Council or the Industrial Tribunal, we are satisfied that that is nothing to do with the matters on which she was ultimately dismissed. There is therefore nothing on this ground which can assist her on this appeal.As to the other two matters which the Appellant raises, she complains that she was not paid mileage payments, but that is dealt with in the Reasons at paragraph 24. It was not disputed that she may have been entitled to mileage payments. Her problem was that she did not submit claims in time. For that reason, as they were entitled to, the Industrial Tribunal found against her.As to her claim for holiday pay, that is also dealt with in the Reasons, this time in paragraph 23. It is apparent that the Appellant, as she accepted this morning before us, took time off for holidays when she should have been at work and, in those circumstances, that time off was not considered holiday pay. We are not clear whether or not, in the final result, there was an arrears of holiday pay, but there was a finding of fact by the Tribunal that there was not and there was nothing to suggest that, on the evidence before them, that the finding was erroneous. It was one which the Tribunal was entitled to make.All of us had sympathy with a lady who obviously did very valuable nursing services to the Polish community, whom she attended over the years at the Lambeth Hospital, but we, unfortunately, can only assist in appeals where there is an error of law or an error in the findings of fact made by the Industrial Tribunal. Nothing of that has occurred here. It is therefore our duty to dismiss this appeal.