[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Moores v. Bude-Stratton Town Council [1999] UKEAT 313_99_1305 (13 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/313_99_1305.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 313_99_1305

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A EATON-HART (of Counsel) Instructed by MESSRS PETER PETER & WRIGHT Solicitors 1 Queen Street Bude Cornwall EX23 8AZ


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON: This application is the preliminary hearing in a proposed appeal by the Appellant from the dismissal of his claim for unfair dismissal amongst other things, by the Respondent Council.

The Appellant says that he was the target of the campaign by a particular elected member of the Council. She originated allegations which caused at least two disciplinary hearings which had failed. He was accused of and cleared of dishonesty but the campaign to "get him" went on and he resigned. The Council on the other hand said that the actions were those of Councillors in their individual capacities. They said that if, which was denied, there had been a dismissal, the reason was that the Appellant had lost the trust and confidence of the Respondent.

The Tribunal found that the contract had been fundamentally breached because there was a significant loss of status in the proposed new conditions being offered to the Appellant. The Tribunal was not however satisfied that this was the reason for his resignation. Things were overtaken by the Councillors' abuse and by the Appellant's going on holiday. In the view of the Tribunal, he did not apply his mind to the question of the contract and it was not a factor when he submitted his resignation. He also knew or ought to have known that the Councillor in question was not his employer.

The narrow point upon which the appeal is presented today by Mr Eaton-Hart is that the approach by the Tribunal was flawed and failed to take account of the other side of the coin, which is whether a local authority has liability for the conduct of its members acting as members in the authority's premises and during the authority's office hours. Mr Eaton-Hart submits that the flaw in considering only the one side of the picture can plainly be demonstrated by the usual sort of circumstance which leads to successful applications on the grounds of constructive dismissal that is to say where a superior's conduct is what is upheld to be objectionable and to justify resignation, thus constituting unfair dismissal, although that superior is not the employer.

He points out that there is no authority about this particular matter and suggests therefore (and we agree with him) that the appeal raises a general point of law. We think the matter should go forward for full argument.

The question for full argument is whether the Employment Tribunal should have considered the potential liability of the Council as the employer for the actions of Councillors towards an employee, acting as Councillors in Council premises and during Council office hours.

We think the matter should go forward for full argument on that point. We think it should be Category B and given a time estimate of 2 hours. We direct that skeleton arguments should be filed 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing and we emphasise that 14 days means 14 days.