Green v P & O North Sea Ferries [1998] UKEAT 1269_97_1012

EAT

Green v P & O North Sea Ferries

[1998] UKEAT 1269_97_1012 · 1998-12-10

JUDGE PETER CLARK:

The Respondent has indicated that it does not oppose this appeal, brought by Mr Green, the Applicant before the Hull Employment Tribunal (Chairman; Mr D J Latham, sitting alone on 6 August 1997) against that Chairman's decision, promulgated with extended reasons on 19 August 1997, that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages on the grounds that it had been compromised in accordance with Section 203(2)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Nevertheless, in accordance with our usual practice, we have considered whether the appeal ought properly to be allowed.

The Appellant was employed by the Respondent from 14 September 1987 until his dismissal effective on 9 October 1996.

By an Originating Application dated 3 December 1996 (the first complaint) the Appellant claimed that he had not received wages for certain days worked between 3 February and 8 April 1996, plus one lieu day.

The first complaint was compromised, following an ACAS conciliated settlement, by an agreement recorded on an ACAS form COT 3 and signed by the parties in February 1997 (the ACAS Agreement).

The Agreement read, so far as is material:

"The Respondent agrees to pay, without admission of liability, and the Applicant agrees to accept the sum of £189.44 in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the termination of the Applicant's Contract of Employment with the Respondent"

By a further Originating Application presented on 27 May 1997 (the second complaint) the Appellant complained that he had not been paid a proportion of the annual profit share, following a bonus declaration made on 25 March 1997.

In response to that complaint the Respondent contended that the claim was caught by the ACAS Agreement. The Chairman accepted that argument. He held that the second complaint arose from the Appellant's employment and its termination, and was a live claim at the date of termination.

In this appeal the short point taken on behalf of the Appellant by Mr Linden, which we accept, is that the wording of the ACAS Agreement did not catch claims arising from the employment, rather than from its termination, as the Agreement provided for. Further, the claim in the second complaint had not crystallised at the effective date of termination of the employment.

In these circumstances we hold that the Chairman fell into error in his construction of the ACAS Agreement. We shall allow the appeal, set aside the decision below and direct that the case proceed to a full merits hearing before a different Tribunal, the last Chairman having found that the claim is not time-barred.