[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Rawcliffe v. Siemens Healthcare Services Ltd [1999] UKEAT 359_99_0707 (7 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/359_99_0707.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 359_99_707, [1999] UKEAT 359_99_0707

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS J GOULDING (Representative)


 


JUDGE WILSON: This hearing has been a preliminary examination of the proposed appeal by the Applicant against the majority reserved decision of the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal found unanimously that the claim for sex discrimination was out of time and that there were no grounds upon which to find it just and equitable to extend the time. They also found unanimously that the damages for breach of contract claim failed, except for payments in respect of bonus for the personal incentive plan and the GVD claim. Finally, by a majority, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair constructive dismissal.

1. The hearing before the Tribunal occupied six days and the judgment and extended reasons extend to 17 pages of A4 typescript. The appeal today, on a preliminary point, has focussed on the question of bonus calculation and breach of the rules of the transfer of undertakings regulations, the sex discrimination case and the breach of contract based upon the "last straw" doctrine. So far as the bonus calculation and breach of transfer of undertaking proceedings are concerned, we cannot find that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in the findings that they made. If there was a miscalculation of any sort, that is a matter of fact, which we cannot go into. It is a matter which there are other ways of dealing with and the Applicant must exercise those other channels. So far as this Tribunal is concerned, we can find no matter of law involved there.
2. With regard to the submissions that have been made about continuing sex discrimination, we note that it is found in the Tribunal's decision that the Applicant herself conceded that she was not alleging any continuing discrimination. She was advised by a solicitor and represented by Counsel, and that is a finding of fact which quite clearly the Tribunal was entitled to make.
3. Finally, with regard to the "last straw" doctrine and the question of unfair dismissal, the majority and minority views of the evidence are extensively set out in the appropriate part of the 17 page decision by the Employment Tribunal, and the majority found that the claim failed for the reasons which are set out at page 27 of the bundle.
4. We have heard nothing which leads us to suppose that there is any error either in law or indeed of fact, so far as those findings are concerned. Viewing the whole thing as we have to, we cannot see any prospect of success on appeal, and accordingly this appeal is dismissed at this stage.