MS A E MOORE-WILLIAMS v EXCHANGE HOUSE SERVICES LIMITED [2001] UKEAT 473_01_1309

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 473_01_1309

Case No Appeal No. EAT/473/01

Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

Between

MS A E MOORE-WILLIAMSAPPELLANT

EXCHANGE HOUSE SERVICES LIMITEDRESPONDENT

Before

His Honour Judge D Serota

Date 13 September 2001

[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MISS S MOOR (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Thompsons Solicitors Congress House Great Russell Street London WC1B 3LW JUDGE D SEROTA QC This application concerns Ms Anne Moore-Williams who appeals from a Decision of an Employment Tribunal, London (Central). The hearing, we believe, took place on 11 December of last year. The Reasons were sent to the parties on 15 February.

[2]Very briefly, the facts were that Ms Moore-Williams was a non-practising barrister who took up employment with Exchange House Services, which is a service company of the well known solicitors, Herbert Smith. Things did not work out and on 7 July, she was dismissed and offered £4,500 as money in lieu of notice. She was, in effect, given compensation for four weeks notice which is what she was entitled to, under her terms and conditions of employment, because she was dismissed within the first thirteen weeks of her employment. Had her employment lasted longer, she would have been entitled to three months notice.

[3]However, she says that her written terms and conditions incorporated a reference to:

"disciplinary and grievance procedures, which apply to your employment being laid out in the Staff Handbook"

The Applicant submits that the grievance procedure, a copy of which is in our papers, would have, in fact, had she been entitled to operate that procedure, entitled her to three months, rather than four weeks notice, had that procedure been adopted. In any event, it is submitted that there would have been a longer period of employment than that which she in fact enjoyed.

[4]The Employment Tribunal took the view that the disciplinary and grievance procedures were not contractual. It is notorious that the question of incorporation of terms and conditions in disciplinary rules, staff handbooks, collective agreements and the like, is sometimes very far from clear, and frequently gives rise to dispute. It is not for us to comment on the eventual merits, or otherwise, of this appeal, but it seems to us that the question as to whether the disciplinary rules and grievance procedure were incorporated into the contract of employment is a matter of law, which is fairly arguable. We therefore say no more about it, and the appeal will be permitted to proceed.