Appeal No.	 EAT/1321/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 11 December 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR J C SHRIGLEY

HARVEY PUBLICATIONS LIMITED	APPELLANT

MISS W A BEAUTRIDGE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR S HARVEY
Managing Director
Harvey Publications Limited
267 High Street
Chatham
Kent ME4 4BN	
For the Respondent		

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	The Applicant before the Ashford Employment Tribunal , Miss Beautridge, commenced employment with Harvey Publications (Ltd) (the Company) as a Telesales Executive on 17 February 1998.

	By her letter of appointment dated 16 February 1998 she was to receive £8,000 per annum plus commission.

	On 15 April she was provided with a company car under the terms of a written agreement of that date.  Under Clause 2 of that agreement she authorised the company to deduct parking fines incurred by her in the use of that car from her wages.

	The employment terminated on 17 April 1998 in circumstances to which we shall return.  On 1 June she presented a complaint to the Tribunal alleging unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract.  The claim was in part resisted, the company contending that she was owed a total of £337.44.  The complaint came before a Chairman, Mr T N May, sitting alone on 30 July 1998.  The Applicant appeared in person; the company was represented by the Company Secretary, Mr Eeles.

	On the evidence before him the Chairman found that on 15 April 1998 the Applicant’s salary was increased to £10,000 per annum.  She tendered her resignation on 17 April giving one month’s notice.  She was told not to work her notice and left.

	The Chaiman held that on termination of the employment the Applicant was entitled to 11 days pay at the rate of £8,000 per annum, reduced for tax and national insurance, and 3 days at the rate of £10,000 per annum, similarly reduced, together with 1 weeks net pay in lieu of notice.  The total gross amount was £646.13.  From that figure was deducted parking fines totalling £60 and statutory deductions of £64.32.  The final award was therefore £517.90, £180.46 more than the company admitted.

	Following promulgation of the Chairman’s decision with extended reasons on 11 August 1998 (the substantive decision), the company applied for a review by letter dated 24 August 1998.  The complaint raised in that application were that the Applicant had refused to work her period of notice.  Further the letter added that the case was heard in the absence of Mr Harvey,  a Director and effectively the principal of the company, who was in hospital on that date.

	That application was dismissed by the Chairman by letter dated 26 August on the grounds that no new evidence point was raised, and further that had Mr Harvey’s evidence been important, an adjournment should have been sought.  

	On 18 September 1998 the company entered a Notice of appeal against the substantive decision.  The grounds of appeal, set out in a subsequent letter dated 5 October 1998, and developed by Mr Harvey before us today, were that the Applicant was asked if she would work her notice period and refused point blank.  Therefore she was not entitled to pay in lieu of notice.  Secondly, the pay rise, which the Chairman found took place on 15 April is disputed, Mr Harvey saying that there is no written confirmation of that increase and that only he could have given a pay rise.  Accordingly the company repeats its case that the amount owing is £337.44 which for reasons that are not satisfactory explained still has not been paid to the Applicant.  

	In that connection, we should add for completeness, that there had been a history of dishonoured wage cheques during the employment, which then had to be represented by the Applicant.

	This is an ex parte preliminary hearing held to determine whether the appeal raises any arguable point of law.  Mr Harvey tells us that although assured by Mr Eeles that he did apply for an adjournment on the basis that Mr Harvey was in hospital on the day of the Tribunal hearing, he Mr Harvey does not believe that that took place, nor do we.  Had an application been made for an adjournment, that fact we are confident, would have been recorded in the Tribunal’s reasons for the substantive decision and in any event, it is clear from the Chairman’s review decision letter of 26 August that no adjournment was sought.

	In these circumstances, this appeal comes down to a pure question of fact.  Mr Harvey seeks to invite this Tribunal to revisit the factual question as to whether or not the Applicant received a rise and whether or not she refused to work her notice contrary to the findings of fact made by the Chairman based on the evidence that was before him.  That is quite impermissible.  Our jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law only.  In these circumstances, no arguable point of law arises in this appeal and it must be dismissed.