Appeal No. EAT/1113/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 9 February 2001

Before
MISS RECORDER SLADE QC
MR D A C LAMBERT
MR P A L PARKER CBE

MR C ORFORD	APPELLANT

RASMI ELECTRONICS LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	No appearance or 
representation by or 
on behalf of the Appellant 	

MISS RECORDER SLADE QC

1	This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Orford against the dismissal by an Employment Tribunal of his claim for unfair dismissal.  Mr Orford had been employed by Rasmi Electronics Ltd for a period of less than one year.  He brought his claim for unfair dismissal on the basis that he was dismissed by reason of assertion of a statutory right or for a refusal to comply with a requirement imposed on breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 in other words that his claim fell within section 104 or section 101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that therefore the statutory requirement of one year’s qualifying employment did not apply (see section 108(3) ).  

2	The Employment Tribunal, having heard the evidence, and having read a witness statement from Mr Orford, concluded that the principal reason for the Applicant’s dismissal was that he was dismissed for an indication that he wished to work in accordance with his view of what his contractual hours were.  He was not prepared to work in excess of what he considered those limited hours to be.  They further concluded that since this reason for dismissal does not come within one of the exceptions to the requirement for a qualifying period of employment for one year, the Applicant’s unfair dismissal claim failed.  

3	To fall within section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the reason for dismissal must be the assertion of a relevant statutory right.  The relevant right in this case was alleged to be the rights conferred by the Working Time Regulations 1998.  Those regulations give a right to workers not to be required to work for more than 48 hours per week.  

4	The Tribunal concluded that this Applicant was dismissed for asserting that he should not work more than his view of contracted hours.  The Tribunal had evidence before it in the form of a witness statement from the Applicant as to what he was asserting to his employer.  In paragraph 2(g) the Tribunal cite a passage from paragraph 31 of the Applicant’s witness statement, in which the Applicant states that he spoke to a representative of the Respondents and told him: 

“I was dissatisfied with my hours and the manner in which he forced me to work them and that I would not be exceeding my promised 37 hours in the future.”

5	In the light of that clear assertion in the Applicant’s own witness statement, in our judgment that it cannot be reasonably be argued that the conclusion of the Employment Tribunal was perverse.  There was material before the Tribunal which enabled it to conclude that this complainant was dismissed for asserting that he should not work more than 37 hours per week that was not an assertion of a statutory right, and accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.