[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Clemance v Boyant Upholstery Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1214_98_0105 (1 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1214_98_0105.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1214_98_0105, [1999] UKEAT 1214_98_105

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal against the Registrar's refusal to extend time. The Notice of Appeal was received here 3 days out of time. The question that I must ask first is what was the reason why the Notice of Appeal was received late. Mr Clemance had presented a complaint of unfair dismissal against the Company by whom he had been employed for 10½ years and for whom he served to the best of his ability.

1. There was a dispute between himself and a supervisor which led to him being dismissed despite his long and faithful service. He felt aggrieved and extremely upset by his dismissal. As he saw it, the dispute with the supervisor was over the best method of working and that his preferred solution was the one which he had been taught in the past and which was, he was confident, the proper way of setting about the job, despite the supervisor's belief that there was a different way which should be followed.
2. So here was an example of a genuine disagreement between people who know what they are doing but whose dispute got somewhat out of control. He told me, and I accept, that during the course of his duties he was also responsible for stock control matters and that when the supervisor took it on the position deteriorated. As he rightly pointed out, he is not seeking to return to his previous employment because his previous Employers have gone into receivership. But he was bitter about the way he had been dealt with and presented his complaint of unfair dismissal which eventually, was dismissed by a decision sent to the parties on 24^th August 1998. Time runs from that moment.
3. The Tribunal's conclusion was that the Applicant had behaved in a way justified his dismissal. Together with the decision, he was sent a copy of the leaflet which accompanies decisions, making it plain that he has 42 days in which to present an appeal from the date when the decision is sent to the parties and not from the date when it is received. For very understandable reasons of personal pressure due to family difficulties, it would appear that the Applicant gave less attention to his obligations in relation to presenting a Notice of Appeal than he would have done if he had not been in such a state. His state of mind was aggravated by his disbelief at the Tribunal's decision upholding what he regarded as a harsh and inappropriate sanction.
4. He sent us his Notice of Appeal but when he was asked about it, he maintained that he had sent it within the 42 days from the date when he had received the Extended Reasons. In other words he was taking the time from which time ran as the date when he had received the Extended Reasons and the date when time stopped, being the date when he sent us the Notice of Appeal. In both cases, he was in error. Time starts from the date when the decision was sent to the parties and time stops on a date when the Notice of Appeal is received here. Thereafter, he was invited to explain and excuse the delay but unfortunately, he did not attend to that and eventually, his Appeal was struck out on 31^st December.
5. Mr Clemance has appeared in front of me today. He readily accepts that he was careless in his approach to the leaflet and he explained to me frankly, that he had other priorities at the time which were the important matters in his life, namely, his family responsibilities and other such personal matters. It is with a heavy heart that I have to say that I do not accept that what I have been told provides a good excuse for not filing a Notice of Appeal within time and not responding to the Employment Appeal Tribunal's requests for explanations. I have every sympathy with this particular Appellant. I can well understand his reasons for believing that he was harshly dealt with at work. He is a skilled workman who gave valuable, loyal service to an Employer over a long period of time and it would appear that it was a personality clash, a disagreement over professional matters which led to his dismissal and which, if it had been handled differently, would no doubt, have not led to the ending of his employment. It seems to me that he should not be blighted by the fact that his complaint of unfair dismissal was rejected by the Employment Tribunal. It seems to me that had his Notice of Appeal been presented within time, there might have been strong arguments for saying that the decision of the Tribunal was wrong, in the sense that the Employers acted over hastily in dismissing him rather than in seeking to sort out the problem and give him, if needs be, a warning.
6. Accordingly, I am afraid that the Appeal must be dismissed and it is to be hoped that he will be able to sort out his problems in the near future and obtain alternative employment as a skilled man, who is able to give loyal service to an employer who treats him well.