MR S E RAMSDEN-COOKE v SHERRRARDSWOOD SCHOOL [2001] UKEAT 1356_00_0405

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 1356_00_0405Case No Appeal No. EAT/1356/00Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR S E RAMSDEN-COOKEAPPELLANTSHERRRARDSWOOD SCHOOLRESPONDENT
Before
Her Honour Judge A Wakefield Mr B R Gibbs Mr D J Hodgkins CbDate 4 May 2001
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant THE APPELLANT IN PERSON JUDGE WAKEFIELD This is an Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing of an Appeal by Mr Ramsden-Cooke against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Bedford and Bury St Edmunds by which his application complaining of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed.[2]The Appellant had been employed as a teacher of Technology at the Respondent's school. He resigned on 1 December 1999, the day upon which he was due to attend a disciplinary hearing. He alleged that the Respondent had been in fundamental breach of his contract of employment and that he was entitled to terminate that contract in circumstances that amounted to unfair dismissal within the meaning of sections 95 (1) and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[3]Over a four-day hearing and a further day for their deliberations, the Employment Tribunal heard a considerable body of evidence and found that there had been no such breach. The central point of the decision promulgated on 13 September 2000 which is criticised by the Appellant is paragraph 7 which relates to the circumstances in which the head teacher Mrs Corry appended her signature to a letter which the Appellant alleges gave rise to a binding contract of employment which the Respondent then breached. The paragraph reads as follows in the decision:
"Mr Ramsden-Cooke agreed that Mrs Corry said that she needed to check the figures with Mr Billingham, the business manager, as Mr Billingham had financial responsibilities and was directly accountable to the chair of finance. Mr Billingham was on holiday at that time and was in fact on holiday from the 14 September through to the 30 September. Mrs Corry did not have authority to agree any increase in salary. We accept that Mrs Corry entered a caveat that she needed to check the figures with Mr Billingham and therefore it was a conditional signature subject to Mr Billingham's approval. Mrs Corry signed the letter but without attaching any written rider which in the circumstances was clearly unwise. In spite of what has been said, Mr Ramsden-Cooke took this to be his trump card that the school had agreed unconditionally to his increase in salary to £24,929.55."
[4]Having heard at length today from the Appellant and having considered carefully the documents to which he has referred us we cannot identify any perversity in the conclusions of the Employment Tribunal in that or in any other part of their findings of fact nor can we identify any error of law in the reasoning which led them to dismiss the originating application. The Employment Tribunal heard all the evidence. They determined on the credibility of witnesses where facts were in issue and they made findings of fact which in our view were wholly supported by that evidence. The Appeal cannot succeed and is dismissed at this stage.