Appeal No.	 EAT/389/89

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 15 October 1991

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

MR A C BLYGHTON

MR R H PHIPPS

PYNFORD NORTH LTD	APPELLANT

J A PATERSON	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	No Appearance
by or on behalf of the Appellants	
For the Respondents	J A PATERSON
(In Person)	

	MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT):  This is an Appeal by Pynford North Limited from an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Nottingham on the 11th May 1989 under the Chairmanship of Mr Senior, when the Decision was unanimous that the Applicant Mr Paterson should be awarded a redundancy compensation of £1,170.40 pence.

	The Appeal came before us at a Preliminary Hearing on the 21st February 1990 and it was felt that the matter needed further enquiry.  

	The reason why we were anxious to investigate the matter further was because of a suggestion made by the Company that the claim before the Nottingham Tribunal by Mr Paterson for redundancy had in fact been the subject of an earlier set of proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal sitting in Manchester.

	The situation was complicated and we felt it right to investigate it further.  With the kind co-operation of the Regional Chairman in Manchester and the Regional Chairman for Nottingham the files in both cases have been copied and sent to us and I have had an opportunity of looking through them in detail.

	Today, the Company does not appear.  A letter of the 26th July 1991, in courteous terms, was sent to us by Mr Morgan who is the new General Manager;  the former General Manager and the former Company Secretary having ceased to be employed by the Company and Mr Paterson indicates that he thinks that they were dismissed some six months ago.  
The Company therefore did not wish to be represented and have not appeared before us on the Full Hearing of the Appeal.

	However, Mr Paterson and his wife are here and they have told us quite clearly that as far as they were aware there may have been some muddled thinking in Manchester but the claim for redundancy was not heard and was not dealt with.

	The form of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal at Nottingham was first that a preliminary point was heard on the 30th June 1988, which was very shortly after the Decision in Manchester in the early part of that year and the preliminary point which Nottingham had to decide was whether or not the claim brought before them by Mr Paterson had in fact already been dealt with in Manchester.

	The Company did not appear on that occasion but did appear when a Review took place on the 11th May 1989.  

	The Tribunal on the second occasion felt that there was room for some misunderstanding in the documentation and that therefore the failure of the Company to appear on the 30th June was not culpable.  They therefore looked into the matter afresh but decided that there was no evidence to be adduced which would tend to disturb the view already taken on the 30th June.  The Tribunal at Nottingham therefore decided to continue and hear Mr Paterson's claim for redundancy payment.

	They found in his favour as we have already said, and in the Notice of Appeal which is dated the 19th July 1989, the first two points taken at the grounds for appeal relate to the Hearing at Manchester.  They are issues of fact and they were decided against the Company not only on the 30th June 1988 but also on reconsideration on the 11th May 1989.  Those two grounds therefore are of no moment because we are looking to see whether there is an error of law.

	The third point taken in the grounds of appeal is that the Tribunal erred in finding that the offers of work made by the Company to Mr Paterson were not satisfactory.

	In the Decision of the Tribunal the whole question of offers of employment was examined with the greatest of care.  In paragraph 6 the real issue in the case is set out.  The Tribunal say this:
		"The real conflict in this case is related to the allegation by the Company that Mr Paterson had rejected offers of work by the Company towards the end of 1987 and also during the course of the hearing before the Manchester Tribunal.  It was further contended on behalf of the Company by virtue of this rejection of these offers, the applicant had voluntarily terminated his employment by breaking his contract and that by doing so he had lost any right to redundancy compensation."

There were issues of fact there that the Tribunal needed to examine.

	They examined two occasions.  Those occasions are set out quite clearly in paragraph 7 and 8.  The Tribunal in paragraph 9 feel that the offers were not genuine and they find no grounds to say that the Applicant had directly broken his contract of service or that the employer was entitled to treat it as being at an end.  They therefore decide that the claim succeeded.  Apparently after deciding on the merits and before reaching the amount those representing the Company those who are now no longer employed, walked out, and that point is made at the end of the Decision.

	There is an implied criticism of the attitude of the Company on that occasion.  However, as far we are concerned the only issue that we need consider is whether or not the Decision of the Industrial Tribunal in Nottingham was in any way flawed in law.  

	We are quite unable to find any error of law and it follows therefore this Appeal is dismissed.