[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Cormack v. Caradon Ideal Ltd [2000] UKEAT 724_00_1312 (13 December 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/724_00_1312.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 724_00_1312, [2000] UKEAT 724__1312

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	The Appellant in person


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. On 14 October 1999, Mr Alexander Cormack, the Appellant, made a complaint to an Employment Tribunal claiming constructive dismissal which was unfair, a redundancy payment, breach of contract (severance terms, and notice).
2. He stated that his employment with the Appellant had been from 2 October 1995 until 15 October 1999. The Respondent to this appeal submitted its IT3 on 21 December 1999 claiming that there was no constructive dismissal.
3. The matter came before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Hull on 14 March 2000. At the end of the hearing we understand summary reasons were given and, a little later, extended reasons were requested by the Appellant on 8 April 2000. Extended reasons were duly prepared and promulgated for the parties on 9 May 2000.
4. From the decision the Appellant appealed. Basically, the appeal alleges that wrong findings of fact were made and there were errors in law relating to future notice and bonus reductions, and that the Employment Tribunal erred by failing to consider the Applicant's case in relation to another matter, which amounted to constructive dismissal.
5. This is the preliminary hearing of the appeal, and Mr Cormack has addressed us today, as we see he did before the Industrial Tribunal, with considerable skill, having regard to his lay position.
6. At the centre of this dispute is what happened when there was a change in the Respondent's way of working, where a number of employees at the end of 1997 and the beginning of 1998, were required to apply for new positions.
7. A package was offered by the Respondent, which was to give an increase in salary on the one hand, for a new position which was being offered, but on the other hand, there were going to be differences in the terms and conditions of the contract, so that the former entitlement to six months' notice would be reduced to three months, and the maximum bonus would be reduced from 50% to 25%.
8. The Appellant did not like the package which was offered, and there were negotiations between the parties, and negotiations resulting in the increase in the salary coming in immediately, but there was a postponement to the changes which were to the detriment of the Appellant, and other employees.
9. The Tribunal, who heard evidence from the parties, found that the package was eventually accepted by the Appellant, albeit under protest, and they held that, having looked at the authorities on which they were addressed, in these terms, in paragraph 13 of the extended reasons:

"If the (Appellant) wished to retain those benefits then, in our view, he was also required to retain the existing salary; that is, he should have refused to accept the pay increase that was offered to him. He did not do so. Accordingly, we take the view that the (Appellant) accepted the entire new contract in full."

That is at the core of the decision, and it is against that finding which the Appellant wishes to appeal. He has had his day in Court, when the arguments which he put forward on the facts were considered. His contentions failed.

10. We cannot find an error of law in the Tribunal's decision, which is one to which they were entitled to come. In these circumstances, we cannot see that there is an arguable point to go to a full hearing, and therefore we dismiss this appeal at this stage.