 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Aaron v Gibbs Hartley Cooper Ltd [1994] UKEAT 812_93_1502 (15 February 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/812_93_1502.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 812_93_1502 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC
MISS J W COLLERSON
MR P DAWSON OBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR J AARON
(SOLICITOR)
Messrs Joseph Aaron & Co
Solicitors
10/17 Sevenways Parade
Woodford Avenue
Gants Hill
ESSEX IG2 6JX
JUDGE LEVY QC: Following hearings on 28 August 1992 and 9 June 1993, the Industrial Tribunal held at London North decided unanimously that Mrs Barbara Aaron had not been unfairly dismissed by Messr Gibbs Hartley Cooper Ltd, and that her claim for unfair dismissal failed accordingly. The Tribunal further held that even if she had been unfairly dismissed, any award would not have exceeded the ex gratia payment which had been made to her by the Respondents. Mr J Aaron, of Messrs Joseph Aaron & Co, appeared for her below and he appears before us today on an ex parte hearing as to whether this appeal should go forward.
What is in issue, is whether the Company were entitled to dismissed the Appellant because she had been employed as a secretary, with other duties. Sadly, because of health reasons, she had not been able to continue with the duties which were truly secretarial and had been given other duties. Mr Aaron argued below, as he has argued before us here, as there were duties as a secretary available in the Company, she could not truly have been made redundant.
The Full Reasons of the Tribunal set out the factors in issue including the work which the Appellant was able to do under the circumstances. Those Full Reasons show the arguments of Mr Aaron were considered and rejected. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Full Reasons show what the Tribunal had in mind and show that although they had a great deal of sympathy for the Applicant, they accepted the Respondents' submissions that there was a true redundancy.
Mr Aaron submits to us that this was either a mis-reading of the law, and in that connection has referred us to the decisions in Haden Ltd -v- Cowen [1982] IRLR 314 and Pink -v- White & Co (Earls Barton) Ltd [1985] IRLR 489. We have looked at the passages in those decisions and we find nothing that supports the submissions that he has made to us.
He further submits to us that the decision of the Tribunal was perverse. We regret that we cannot agree with this submission. The facts found by the Tribunal seem to be facts which they could have found on the evidence which was before them and certainly do not seem to us to be perverse.
In the circumstances we feel that there is no point in letting this appeal, which must fail,
go forward. We therefore dismiss this appeal while thanking Mr Aaron for his submissions.