BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Pontardawe Public Hall & Institute v Richards [1993] UKEAT 186_92_2502 (25 February 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/186_92_2502.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 186_92_2502 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC
MR J CROSBY
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR
REPRESENTATION ON
BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANTS
JUDGE HARGROVE OBE QC: This is a matter in which we have already been notified in advance that the Appellants cannot be with us. The matters upon which exception is taken to the decision that the Respondent was unfairly dismissed are first of all that the person who took her place is allegedly not doing the same job as she was doing. She was a cleaner and billiard marker and the new post is for billiard marker only. The Tribunal has obviously considered that matter. It is a matter of fact and no point arises there.
The matter which gave myself certainly some cause for pause was the point that in fact a Mr Moses, the Chairman of the Institute, had attempted to speak but had been told that he would be given an opportunity to do this later but then did not give evidence. I put it neutrally. There is a feeling on the part of the Appellants that they had been somewhat harshly treated. They feel that there should be, because of the informal nature of industrial tribunals, some invitation to Mr Moses to have given evidence. At first sight as I say, this is a matter of some importance, but no evidence has been put before us in any way to show what Mr Moses would have said and whether that would have made the slightest difference to the decision. In those circumstances there are no points of law upon which this appeal can be founded and we order that no further action be taken upon the appeal.
