Appeal No.	 EAT/20/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 April 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MISS C HOLROYD
MR A D TUFFIN CBE

MR R SMALES	APPELLANT

TILCON NORTHERN LTD
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TILCON (NORTH) LTD)	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	No Appearance 
by or on Behalf
of the Appellant	

JUDGE CLARK

1	This is an appeal by Mr Smales, the Applicant before Leeds Employment Tribunal sitting on 5 November 1999, against that Employment Tribunal’s decision, promulgated with extended reasons on 2 December 1999, dismissing his complaint of unfair dismissal brought against his former employer, Tilcon (North) Ltd.

2	We have received a letter from the Appellants representative, Mr Naylor dated 17 April 2000, indicating that he would not be attending this preliminary hearing and asking us to consider the appeal on the papers.  That we have done.

3	The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Maintenance Fitter covering 4 of their mortar plants in the North of England.  He travelled between sites in a van provided by his employer.

4	In summer 1998 the Respondent concluded that the Appellant was spending too much time travelling between sites and not enough time carrying out maintenance work.  His continued employment was not cost effective; they resolved to delete his post from the organisation.

5	As a result the Appellant saw a member of management, Mr Hicks, on 5 November 1998 for a discussion.  He was offered the opportunity to compete for alternative employment as a mobile plant fitter at a different base which he declined.  He was dismissed by reason of redundancy by letter dated 2 December 1998.

6	The Employment Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy.  They considered the question of fairness under Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996.  They found
(1)	That proper consultation had taken place with the Appellant.
(2)	That no question of selection arose.  Redundancy lay where it fell.
(3)	The Respondent had taken reasonable steps to find the Appellant alternative employment.

In these circumstances they found the dismissal fair.

7	We turn now to the grounds of appeal contained in a Notice received on 24 December 1999.

8	The first ground of complaint is that the Appellant was put at a disadvantage at the hearing because the Employment Tribunal ruled that witness statements, exchanged between the parties on the morning of the hearing, were to be taken ‘as read’.  His representative was not given a proper opportunity to challenge fully evidence given on behalf of the Respondent.  We reject that submission.  The Chairman explains, in a letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 25 January 2000 commenting on the Notice of Appeal, that the Employment Tribunal members read all the witness statements to themselves instead of having them read out by the individual witnesses.  That seems to us to be a perfectly proper procedure.

9	The remaining grounds of appeal challenge the Employment Tribunal’s findings, paragraph by paragraph in their reasons.  We have considered each of those grounds but are unable to detect any arguable point(s) of law raised therein.  In essence, this is an appeal on fact, not law.  Our jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law by the Employment Tribunal.  

10	In these circumstances we shall dismiss this appeal.