[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Meiszner v Hart Timber Preservation Ltd [1997] UKEAT 691_97_0910 (9 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/691_97_0910.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 691_97_0910, [1997] UKEAT 691_97_910

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS H PLEWS (Solicitor) Citizens Advice Bureau 167 Hoe Street Walthamstow London E17 3AL


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY: The Preliminary Hearing procedure is to ensure that cases where there is no point of law or certainly no arguable point of law, do not proceed to a full hearing with the consequent waste of public money, inconvenience, heartache and expense to the parties.

Having considered the arguments put before us we do consider there are certain grounds of appeal, namely in this case the Appellant was dismissed without being interviewed and given the opportunity to meet the allegations made by the employer against him. The Tribunal deal with that matter in paragraph 9 and accepted the Respondent's procedures for dismissal were poor. Their conclusion was:

"... notwithstanding the procedural failings, that a reasonable employer could, in these circumstances, have properly concluded that it was unsafe to continue the employment of those responsible for such work."

What in fact the Tribunal did not in terms set out was whether it was reasonable for the employer to have concluded that the employee should be dismissed without first affording him the opportunity of giving his explanation for the state of affairs which the employer believed to exist, especially having regard to the fact that the Applicant in this case was not the only person so engaged on that particular task.

Further, we are concerned that whether the Tribunal properly directed itself to the issue as to wrongful dismissal in their determination that the Applicant's case on wrongful dismissal failed. Without going into great detail there is a fundamental distinction between those reasons, which are potentially fair within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the common law position as to whether dismissal without notice is justified, having regard to the very fundamental breach of the contract which is necessary in such circumstances.

We therefore propose to allow the appeal as to those issues. We see no basis at all in ordering a Chairman's notes, that is a matter that has been constantly deprecated. The evidence was clearly before the Tribunal. We consider that there are two areas of law which are arguable. We do not, in any way, wish to put that higher than that.

Leave is given to amend grounds of appeal within 14 days.