[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Staniforth v. Southern Salads Ltd [1999] UKEAT 478_99_1407 (14 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/478_99_1407.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 478_99_1407

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE CLARK: This is an appeal by Mr Richard Staniforth, the Applicant before the Ashford Employment Tribunal, against that Tribunal's decision to award him compensation limited to two weeks pay for his unfair dismissal by the Respondent, Southern Salads Ltd. Extended reasons for that decision, originally promulgated on 14 January 1999, are dated 15 February 1999.

1. The facts are that the Appellant was employed by the Respondent from 14 November 1994, until his dismissal by reason of redundancy, effective on 14 August 1998. He started as a Quality Control Technician, finally progressing to Information Technology Manager in January 1998.
2. In June 1998 the Respondent lost an important contract for the supply of its product. Job losses became necessary. The Board decided to cut three management posts, including that held by the Appellant. Further, 21 computer projects on which the Appellant was working, or about to start work, were cancelled. The number of production workers was to be reduced from 100 to 70.
3. Mr Boakes, the Technical Director, saw the Appellant on 14 July 1998, informed him that he was to be made redundant and gave him one month's notice, which he then worked out. There was no prior consultation. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found that he dismissal was unfair.
4. During the notice period, Mr Boakes offered both the Appellant and another redundant manager, Ms Trundle, temporary contracts of three months duration. She accepted, but the Appellant did not.
5. Having found the dismissal to be unfair, solely due to the lack of consultation, the Tribunal accepted that the Appellant's post was unique and that save for the offer of a temporary three month contract, rejected by the Appellant, there was no alternative employment available for him. We also infer that the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's submission that the Appellant was fairly selected for redundancy.
6. In these circumstances the Tribunal held that the compensatory award should be limited to two weeks net pay being the duration of what they regarded as proper consultation. In this respect we think that they were directing themselves in accordance with the decision of this Appeal Tribunal in Mining Supplies (Longwell) Ltd v Baker (1988) ICR 676.
7. They further concluded, in paragraph 31 of their reasons, that it was more likely than not that at the end of the notional consultation period, the Appellant would have been made redundant. We think a fair reading of that paragraph leads us to conclude that the Tribunal were finding that in all the circumstances of the case, dismissal would inevitably have followed a proper consultation period.
8. Before us today, Mr Staniforth has argued that the Tribunal were wrong to have preferred Mr Boakes evidence as to the circumstances in which the Appellant came to decline the offer of the three month temporary contract, although he accepts before us that he had asked for an increase in pay for that period. We have endeavoured to explain to Mr Staniforth that our powers are limited to correcting errors of law.
9. We note that the original Notice of Appeal was settled by solicitors Messrs Berry and Berry and we are aware that Mr Staniforth has had the opportunity to consult a lawyer under the ELAAS pro bono scheme. He is unable to identify any error of law which might be arguable at a full appeal hearing. It is quite clear to us that his complaint relates to the Tribunal's finding of fact, not their approach in law. In these circumstances, our jurisdiction being limited as we have said, we must dismiss this appeal.