[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bienvenue & Anor v Kivrak- The Limetree Restaurant & Hotel [1997] UKEAT 1031_96_1504 (15 April 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/1031_96_1504.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 1031_96_1504

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR ROBERT HAWKER (Representative) 34 Sacombe Pound Sacombe Ware Herts SG12 OJW
For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: This is an appeal by Monsieur Jean-Louis Bienvenue and Madame Madeleine Virgile against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Ashford, on 12 July 1996. Mr Hawker, who appeared for the Appellants below, appears before us today. The Respondents are not represented.

The appeal raises a comparatively short point. The Applicants, who are "partners", were engaged by the Respondent, Mr M. Kivrak, trading as The Lime Tree Restaurant and Hotel, as a chef and chambermaid. Mr Bienvenue's employment commenced on 27 October 1995 and that of his partner on 3 November 1995.

Both Applicants left the Respondent's employment on Christmas Day 1995. The reason they left was that the Respondent, who did not appear below and has not appeared or been represented today, failed to give them payslips. Their complaint about this was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal, in terms, found that, although there was a requirement by law to give the employees payslips, as the employees had a remedy in statute if they did not have payslips, there could not have been a fundamental breach of the terms of the employment.

Mr Hawker, who represents them today, says this is wrong for two reasons. First of all, these persons are French nationals (and there was evidence of that below) and they are required to have their payslips to take back home. He submitted it is quite unreasonable for an employee to refuse to provide them. Furthermore, unless they have payslips, how can they understand the deductions made from their weekly pay? There must be an implied term of their contract of employment that the payslips should be supplied. Secondly, and more fundamentally, he submits, if statute gives them a right to claim their payslips and if statute gives them a further right to come to an Industrial Tribunal, although they have not been employed for two years, if their statutory right has been broken, it is implied in statute that it is a fundamental term of the contract that they should be given a payslip in accordance with the law.

We think that both Mr Hawker's submissions are right and on these grounds we allow this appeal. Mr Hawker asks us to remit the matter to the Industrial Tribunal to consider compensation, having regard to the decision which we have reached. This we will do.