BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Whitefield v Lloyds Bank Plc [1993] UKEAT 771_92_2601 (26 January 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/771_92_2601.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 771_92_2601 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR J D DALY
MISS C HOLROYD
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Miss Whitefield appealing against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Bristol under the Chairmanship of Mr Woods on the 27th April 1992. We are therefore looking to see whether there is an error of law in the decision of the Industrial Tribunal which merits a hearing inter partes.
Miss Whitefield does not appear today nor is she represented. It may be due to reasons of health. She has kindly notified us of her intention not to appear.
This case has taken an unfortunate course. The Originating Application was dated the 18th September 1991 and in it Miss Whitefield alleged that she had been unfairly dismissed by the bank. The reason for dismissal was redundancy and the issues therefore before the Tribunal were whether there was a redundancy and whether Miss Whitefield had been fairly treated.
After the hearing on the 27th April, the learned Chairman gave an extempore judgment. Subsequently, there were summary Reasons which were sent to the parties on the 3rd June 1992, they were really just two paragraphs. Miss Whitefield did not receive those and wished to receive full Reasons; when she did not receive them she approached her Member of Parliament. The Member of Parliament wrote to the Regional Chairman, and it was Mr Woods who was involved, asking about the matter, complaining about the delay and complaining further that Miss Whitefield had been told that the tape had been lost, indeed it had. The learned Chairman, naturally, was greatly embarrassed. He was extremely angry about the matter. It was an administrative failure and he wrote in the most contrite terms to Miss Whitefield's Member of Parliament. In order to assist him in the preparation of the full Reasons the learned Chairman referred, not only to his own Notes but wrote to both parties to see if the Advocates who were present, and the bank had been represented by Counsel and Solicitors, were able to provide such notes that they had taken of his oral decision. Armed with those replies he prepared full Reasons which were promulgated and sent to the parties on the 29th June 1992.
Miss Whitefield appeals by her Notice of Appeal of the 27th July 1992. Her complaint is in connection with the loss of the tape; delay in giving the Reasons; the unprofessional and irregular conduct of the Tribunal, and the fact which we gleaned from subsequent correspondence, that the full Reasons are "contaminated" because the learned Chairman had sought assistance from the notes of the Advocates attending before him before proffering those final Reasons.
It seems to us that the learned Chairman behaved perfectly properly in the course which he took, having been faced with the administrative catastrophe of the loss of the tapes, and there is no criticism of him that can properly be levelled in the way he conducted and dealt with the matter. It is, however, to be deplored that this should have happened and we, naturally, appreciate Miss Whitefield's depth of feeling. We also glean from the documentation that she was not in the best of health.
Looking at the Reasons, the Tribunal found, as was the case, that Miss Whitefield had been employed by Lloyds Bank from the 6th November 1961. She was dismissed on the 9th August 1991, that was many years service. The basis of the dismissal was redundancy. Miss Whitefield became an Assistant Manager in about 1986. She was in charge of promotional items in the Marketing Communications Department, and that job was based in London. In 1989 independent consultants recommended that her duties in this post should be put out to contractors, and her job, therefore, ceased to exist. She was offered and took a new position in operational support, which was a travelling job, she also moved about. She was away for a period sick. Those details were examined by the Tribunal, we do not need to repeat the history. They were satisfied, and it was a finding of fact, that the position was reached where Miss Whitefield was redundant. Having reached that decision the Tribunal looked to see whether the way in which Miss Whitefield had been treated was in any way unfair. They applied the law correctly and they say that they are satisfied that the bank took all reasonable steps to find alternative work for Miss Whitefield and that such work was not available. The Personnel Department had circulated her details to all possible departments with a view to finding a suitable vacancy for her, not only in Bristol but in South Wales and other areas. No suitable vacancies were found, and as the Tribunal comment, it was pretty difficult at the time because the bank had been involved in making something like 5,000 staff redundant in 1991 in their retail bank operations.
The grievance procedure was set in motion and the Tribunal find that Miss Whitefield's position was extensively and thoroughly reviewed through that procedure. There were detailed discussions about her situation and her severance terms and ultimately, as the Tribunal found, her severance pay was £72,053 plus three months salary in lieu of notice; they comment that these were generous settlement terms and fortunate in comparison with many who are made redundant. They also looked at all the other efforts and suitable positions and they say:
"However we are satisfied that all possible efforts had been made to secure alternative employment for her and that the respondents had not arranged matters so that she was in a vulnerable position so that she could be made redundant. We are therefore satisfied that the dismissal was fair . . . The respondents did not deal with this dismissal in any manner which would amount to a breach of their established policy for handling redundancies."
We are unable to discern any error of law in those full Reasons.
Therefore, the real basis of complaint which Miss Whitefield has is as to the loss of the tape and the way in which the full Reasons were prepared. Having looked into the matter we are not satisfied that there is any error of law disclosed and this is a sad case where after so many years of good service redundancy ensued but there was no unfairness and no error of law which we can discern. This appeal, therefore, must be dismissed at this stage, which it is.
