Tring (t/a Oakhurst Manor) v Watson [1998] UKEAT 1043_98_0210

EAT

Tring (t/a Oakhurst Manor) v Watson

[1998] UKEAT 1043_98_0210 · 1998-10-02

JUDGE PETER CLARK:

Mrs Watson, the Respondent to this appeal, was employed by the Appellant, Mr Richard Tring at his care home for the elderly, Oakhurst Manor. She worked in the capacity of a care assistant from 3 April 1995 until her dismissal on 23 December 1997.

Following her dismissal she presented a complaint to the Industrial Tribunal, as it then was, on 5 January 1998 alleging unfair dismissal, failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, and for unpaid wages. To that complaint the Appellant entered a Notice of Appearance contending that the Appellant had been fairly dismissed on the grounds of her misconduct, that is insubordination and refusal to attend for duty. The claims were denied.

The case was listed for hearing on 18 June 1998. The Respondent Mrs Watson attended before the Tribunal sitting at Ashford, the Appellant did not. The case proceeded in his absence. The Tribunal found that the Respondent was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation totalling £1,125 for her unfair dismissal. In addition, the Tribunal awarded £437.53 being monies due to her on termination of the employment. A cheque for that amount made out by the Appellant was not met by his bankers. The final claim, failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, was dismissed. The Tribunal's extended reasons for their decision are dated 22 June 1998.

Now there is an appeal. Mr Tring has not appeared before us today, he says due to his employment commitments. He indicates in a letter dated 29 September to the Registrar that he will be content for his case to be represented by a lawyer under the terms of the Free Advisory Service. That is not how the ELAS Scheme works. Representation pro bono will only be provided for those who attend the hearing in order to instruct the advisers. We have accordingly proceeded to consider this appeal on the papers.

In paragraph 1 of his skeleton argument the Appellant says that he was unable to attend the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal owing to overriding working commitments arising from the previous day. A phone call was made to the Industrial Tribunal Office to this effect.

We have the comments of the Tribunal Chairman in the letter from the Employment Tribunal dated 25 August 1998, it says this:

"3. When Mr Tring did not appear on the morning of 18 June 1998, the chairman instructed me [that's the member of the Regional Secretary's staff] to see if there were any messages. I went downstairs and checked with the main office. There were no message and nor was there any record of any telephone call having been received. Consequently the hearing commenced, in Mr Tring's absence, at 10.10 a.m.

4. I would add that I not surprised at Mr Tring's non attendance because I was personally aware that, on an earlier occasion, he had failed to attend for another Tribunal hearing."

of course we have not heard from him in this appeal today.

This is not the first case to come before us in which a small employer has adopted a cavalier approach to Industrial Tribunal hearings. Even if the Appellant telephoned the Industrial Tribunal he was not told that the matter would be adjourned. Attendance at Industrial Tribunal hearings by parties is a priority. If they do not attend they cannot later expect this appeal tribunal to give them a second bite of the cherry.

That, in essence, is what this appeal amounts to. Mr Tring wishes to show that the decision to dismiss Mrs Watson was fair. He had his chance to make that case before the Industrial Tribunal . He failed to take it. There is no point of law raised by this appeal. It must be dismissed.