Jones v Jeffrey Rosson Of Great Company Ltd [1997] UKEAT 576_97_0311

EAT

Jones v Jeffrey Rosson Of Great Company Ltd

[1997] UKEAT 576_97_0311 · 1997-11-03

MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT) : This is a preliminary hearing to determine whether Mr Jones has an arguable point of law in relation to a decision which was arrived at by an Industrial Tribunal held at Stratford on 27th November 1996. That decision was sent to the parties on 7th January 1997.

At the hearing Mr Jones was represented by Mr Collins who was a representative of the Free Representation Unit which is a unit which provides valuable services to people who otherwise require help but cannot obtain it through the Legal Aid system.

The appellant, Mr Jones, alleged that he was dismissed and he alleged that he had been dismissed for a reason which related to an assertion of his statutory rights, so that if that was the reason for his dismissal the tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon his complaint, although he had less than two years continuous service. The purpose of the hearing therefore was for the tribunal to determine whether the reason for his dismissal brought him within s.95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and if so, they would have had jurisdiction, and if not, they would not. It was the Industrial Tribunal's conclusion that he had not established that the reason for the dismissal was because he had done an act falling within s.95.

The tribunal heard evidence from the parties and made a number of findings of fact. There was a crucial telephone call which took place between the company and the appellant's mother. It was crucial because on it hinged the answer to the question as to whether the company had done anything improper on the following day, namely the Saturday. The tribunal having heard the evidence, preferred the version given by the respondents to that given by the appellant's mother.

When the appellant turned up for work on the Saturday morning he complained that he was treated aggressively be somebody who was working in the shop, albeit not employed by the respondent company. Eventually the police were called, and the proprietor of the business was contacted by the police and certain evidence was given about that. The Industrial Tribunal concluded as follows:

"6 In the circumstances we regard the events such as they were on the Saturday morning as completely outside the control of the Respondent who had given clear instructions that the Applicant should not attend the premises and whatever happened on that Saturday morning is not, in our view, a fundamental breach of the contract by the Respondent because the Applicant had clearly been told not to go to the shop. Neither Mr nor Mrs Christopher [ the people who were in the shop that morning ] were in our view acting as an agent. Furthermore, we accept that the Applicant had been told that he should return to work on Tuesday."

Those findings were entirely consistent with the findings which they had made about the crucial telephone call. The tribunal continued:

"There has been no return to work by Mr Jones who regarded himself as constructively dismissed although the Respondent expected to see him. We find on the evidence that he was not entitled so to regard himself and accordingly we find that there was no dismissal within the meaning of the Act and in the circumstances the Originating Application is dismissed."

In the light of the tribunal's conclusion that there was no dismissal, it follows that the applicant had failed to establish that he was dismissed for a reason which gave the tribunal jurisdiction. As he was unable to establish a dismissal, they did not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint of unfair dismissal.

The Notice of Appeal asserts that a dismissal did take place, and that the tribunal should also have considered a complaint of unlawful deductions, as it was not practicable for this to have been presented before.

In the course of the paperwork attached to the Notice of Appeal, the appellant very fairly records the fact that his FRU representative had advised that there was no legal factors in his case on which a valid appeal could be made. We respectfully agree with the assessment made by his own adviser. It seems to us that this appeal raises no question of law. We are satisfied that all his complaints were properly and carefully considered by the Industrial Tribunal. That being so, the appeal will be dismissed.