Appeal No.	 EAT/51/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 15 June 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
PROFESSOR P D WICKENS OBE

KINGSNORTH BITUMEN PRODUCTS LTD	APPELLANTS

MR R FRITTER & OTHERS	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MISS A WADE
(Representative)
MacDonald Partnership
Martin House
26-30 Old Church Street
London
SW3 5BY	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:     This is an appeal by Kingsnorth Bitumen Products Ltd in a company voluntary arrangement, against a decision of the Ashford Tribunal (Chairman: Mr G.W. Davis) sitting on 11 August 1997.

	The background is that the company was in financial difficulties and Mr Robert Schneiderman was appointed joint supervisor in the Company voluntary arrangement.  The Applicants before the Industrial Tribunal were formerly employed by the Company until their dismissal by reason of redundancy.  

	They brought claims which were upheld.  First, for an enhanced redundancy payment which they alleged was due to them under their contracts of employment.  Secondly, a service award of one week’s pay for each year’s service and thirdly, compensation for unfair dismissal.
	
	Those claims succeeded, there being no representations made before the Tribunal on behalf of the Appellant.

	Miss Wade, who has appeared on behalf of the Appellant this morning, submits first that there was no contractual right to the enhanced payment or the service award and in support of that submission she seeks to rely upon a standard form document which was handed over by the Company to Mr Schneiderman headed “Personnel Employment Details”.  That document was apparently not before the Industrial Tribunal and no good reason has been put before us why we should adduce it in evidence now.  But in any event, the Industrial Tribunal had both documentary and oral evidence before it on which it reached the conclusion that the first two mentioned payments were due under the contracts.

	In these circumstances this point is really an attempt to re-argue the factual issues which ought to have been dealt with before the Industrial Tribunal.  If an Appellant chooses not to attend then he can hardly complain if findings of fact are made against him.

	As to the unfair dismissal complaints, the Tribunal awarded compensation amounting to two weeks’ net pay to each of the Applicants on the basis that no consultation had taken place with them before their dismissal and that proper consultation would, in the view of the Tribunal, have extended the period of employment in each case by two weeks.

	Miss Wade submits that it was the duty of Mr Schneiderman to preserve the assets of the Company as far as possible and in those circumstances it was necessary to make the redundancies immediately without a further period for consultation.

	We have asked her whether she is able to point to any principle of law which excuses a practitioner in these circumstances from consulting with staff who are to be made redundant.  She was unable to do so.  We know of no such authority and in these circumstances we can see no arguable ground for challenging that part of the Tribunal’s finding.

	In these circumstances it seems to us that this appeal raises no arguable point of law to go to a full hearing and accordingly it must be dismissed at this stage.