 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> J Golding Group Of Companies v McClelland & Anor [1994] UKEAT 855_92_2001 (20 January 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/855_92_2001.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 855_92_2001 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
EAT/151/93
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR D G DAVIES
MR T C THOMAS CBE
(2) MRS J E McCLELLAND
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR C SHEPLEY
(Solicitor)
The Shepley Consultancy
Forest Road
East Horsley
Surrey
KT24 5BB
For the Respondents MR R DOWNEY
(Of Counsel)
Astons
57 Love Lane
Pinner
Middlesex
HA5 3EY
JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Today we have appeals by the Golding Group against two decisions of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South), first sitting on the 16th and 17th July 1992 and then on compensation, at a later date, in respect of Mr and Mrs McClelland. In essence the McClelland's, whom I refer to as the employees, worked at the shop premises of the Golding Group, whom I will refer to as the employer, the employer having a number of shop premises.
On the 15th November the manager at a set of premises at Croydon resigned.
On the 18th November Mr Golding, of the employers, saw the male employee, and after the meeting wrote him a letter saying that the shop at which he was then working was likely to close and words to the effect that there was unlikely to be another vacancy but if there was he would be considered. (I am paraphrasing the letter). In fact, as Mr Golding must have known at that time, there was every likelihood that the Croydon shop would be available if it was necessary to close the Epsom shop.
Subsequently the employers employed somebody else at the Croydon shop when it became vacant. Thereafter the employees were both made redundant and from that they made application to the Industrial Tribunal who held they had been unfairly dismissed. It is right to say that in the course of the events which had happened, on the 6th December 1991, Mr Golding wrote a letter to the male employee explaining to him why he had not been offered the job at Croydon. The Tribunal found that letter to be disingenuous - a holding which we think was amply justified on the evidence.
We have listened carefully to the submissions of Mr Shepley but, charmingly and forcefully though they were made, we find no merit in them. We are satisfied that the discretion which the Tribunal undoubtedly had below was properly exercised and we can see no reason whatsoever to alter their decision either on dismissal or on compensation.
In the circumstances the appeals will be dismissed.