[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ituke v London Co-Operative Training Ltd [1998] UKEAT 648_98_0110 (1 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/648_98_0110.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 648_98_110, [1998] UKEAT 648_98_0110

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Ms L Ituke (In Person)


 


JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in an appeal against a decision promulgated on 24 April 1998 of a Employment Tribunal Chairman who held that Mrs Ituke had not been dismissed, and furthermore that she had not been in two years continuous employment when the employment was terminated. Therefore she did not qualify for a redundancy payment. Mrs Ituke appeals.

Quite shortly the facts are as follows: she began her employment with the Respondents on 5 February 1996. The Respondents are a small voluntary sector company of some 4 or 5 employees only. In September 1997, the decision was made that the organisation should wind down its activities as its original purposes had been fulfilled. In consequence, like any reasonable responsible person, Mrs Ituke looked to her own future and sought employment elsewhere. Indeed, it in no way surprised us that she got employment offered to her pretty well straight away.

The question thereafter was holding her new employers at bay whilst she did the best she could to qualify for a redundancy payment in her present employment.

On 11 November, it was intimated to her that her job would be becoming redundant. We are satisfied, as indeed the Tribunal Chairman was, that she was not told at that particular stage that she was being dismissed or anything of that sort.

It was Mrs Ituke's case before us today, as it indeed it was before the Chairman, that she regarded the notification she received on 11 November as amounting to a dismissal for redundancy. The extended reasons made plain that the Chairman did not accept this, and they go on to say,

"The Applicant knew that her job had not been terminated and she said in cross examination "I agree that Sheila [Miss Kelly] was not telling me that I was being made redundant".

So that was on 11 November. By 26 November no notices of redundancy having been given, Mrs Ituke decided that she had to grasp the nettle, and as a result, on that date, she wrote a letter of resignation intimating that she would be retiring as of 1 February. That was a date which she thought was the second anniversary of the commencement of her employment.

The Respondent then issued notices of redundancy on 28 November, two days after Mrs Ituke had sent in her letter of resignation. She was not given a notice of redundancy and she was told the reason for that was that she had resigned and furthermore, had not served the two years that would have qualified her for redundancy payment. Mrs Ituke then offered to stay on the extra few days in order to qualify for the two year period, but she was told that would make no difference because she was resigning.

In consequence of that information she decided that she was going to leave as soon as she could. She intimated that she would be leaving on the 2 January instead of 1 February, and indeed that was the date on which she left.

The Employment Tribunal came to the conclusion that nothing the Respondents had done could be interpreted as a dismissal of Mrs Ituke, and as I have already intimated, that was particularly so in relation to the evidence concerning the information Mrs Ituke received on 11 November. Furthermore, the Employment Tribunal came to the conclusion that 5 February was the second anniversary and not any other date earlier. Accordingly there is no doubt that she resigned at a date before the end of the two year period.

The Chairman of the Tribunal, in drafting the extended reasons, plainly understood how unfair the interaction of the statutory provisions must have seemed to Mrs Ituke and we would like to voice the same view. In effect what happened was, that if the Respondents had got their act together somewhat more quickly, the notices of redundancies would have been issued before Mrs Ituke's letter of resignation. We think Mrs Ituke must take consolation from the fact that she secured for herself a sound alternative position of employment and we wish her every success in that job. Hopefully, without sounding too patronizing, we would also like to say that she has argued this appeal with intelligence and moderation, but in the circumstances, we can see no arguable point of law which would justify this case going forward for a full hearing.

We would also intimate that, having regard to her length of service, we think that the amount of money Mrs Ituke would have recovered, had she succeeded in her claim of redundancy, would have been minimal. We would advise her perhaps to have a word with Mr Morton before he or she leaves this building with a view to ascertaining precisely how much she would have got had she succeeded. That may be a consolation too.

In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal.