Appeal No.	 EAT/1019/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 10 February 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR R JACKSON
MR R H PHIPPS

MISS Y A FRENCH	APPELLANT

BROWN MASON LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT	

		JUDGE CLARK:   This is an appeal by Miss French, the Applicant before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Ashford on 12 August 1996, which dismissed her complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract.  Extended Reasons for that decision are dated 14 August 1996.

	This is a Preliminary Hearing held to determine whether or not the appeal raises any arguable point of law to go to a full appeal hearing.  By a letter dated 26 January 1997 Miss French has indicated that for financial reasons she is unable to attend before us today.  We quite understand and have considered the case on the papers.

	Miss French entered the Respondents employ on 20 May 1996 as a receptionist.  On 31 May 1996 she was dismissed.  It followed that she did not have two years qualifying service entitling her to bring a statutory complaint of unfair dismissal.  Accordingly that claim (Case No. 34843/96) was dismissed on the grounds that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it.

	As to the claim for breach of contract (Case No.35364/96), the Industrial Tribunal pointed out that there was no contractual right to notice, and that under what was then Section 49(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (now Section 86(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996) she did not qualify for even one week’s notice in view of her short service.

	Her appeal is based on what she describes as the appalling treatment meted out to her by her employers.  That may or may not be the case.  However, we cannot investigate those allegations any more than could the Industrial Tribunal.  Quite simply, as a matter of law, she had no cause of action, whether under statute or at common law.  The Industrial Tribunal so found.  It did not fall into error.  Accordingly we have no jurisdiction to interfere with that decision.  The appeal must be dismissed.