[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Roberts (t/a Sunfield Nursery) v. Richards & Anor [2000] EAT 1344_99_2405 (24 May 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1344_99_2405.html Cite as: [2000] EAT 1344_99_2405

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MRS J DALZELL (Daughter) On behalf of the Appellant


 


HIS HONORABLE JUDGE WILSON

1. This has been the preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by Mrs Roberts against the finding by the Employment Tribunal that the application for redundancy money was well founded and that the Applicant Miss Richards should receive a sum of £760 in respect of that redundancy.
2. Mrs Roberts has been represented by her daughter Mrs Dalzell in today's proceedings and she really makes three points. The first is that the evidence upon which the Tribunal found in favour of Miss Richards was insufficient because it rested entirely on her oral account of what had happened. Secondly that, although she realises it is too late to rely on it, the letter that she has written might well have made a difference, although she appreciates that that cannot be brought into account because it was available to her mother at the date of the Tribunal proceedings. Thirdly that if this sort of case is allowed on this sort of evidence then it would open the floodgates. We have also had regard to the grounds of appeal and have read everything that has been put before us. We disregard entirely Mrs Dalzell's letter because it could have been evidence at the time of the proceedings as she herself recognises and it would therefore be quite wrong for us to take it into account in any way at all, when considering whether the Employment Tribunal made any error.

We note that in paragraph 5(b), which is the paragraph of the Tribunal decision dealing with the facts found, it is stated that

"On 27 July Mrs Roberts told the applicant that she was closing the nursery for health reasons and also because she could not afford improvements that were required."

The paragraph then goes on to detail the arrangements made for the children to be transferred to Mrs Bruce's nursery. The facts continue to deal with the evidence given by Mr Roberts and in paragraph 5(e) he is quoted as follows:-

"…he denied anyone was told they were redundant, but he accepted that this may have been implied. He said that they were told that the business had been sold to Sunfield and that the employees were told jobs were available for them. He confirmed the terms of sale and accepted that the applicant was an honest and open person."

The Tribunal also had evidence that two other women who had worked for Mrs Roberts had been dealt with so far as redundancy was concerned. That is dealt with in paragraph 3 of the extended reasons: -

"…the applications by Mrs Wilkinson and by Mrs Hope had been settled by agreement between the parties, apparently Mrs Roberts and Mrs Bruce agreeing each to pay one-half of the redundancy payments due to these two persons. The Tribunal was informed of the settlement of these cases by letter from the solicitors to the three applicants received on 17 August 1999. Thus Miss Richards was the only one whose case had not been settled of these three and her application therefore proceeded alone."

3. In paragraph 6 of its decision the Tribunal expressed a view that there was no doubt that the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations 1981 did apply to the transfer of Mrs Roberts's business to Mrs Bruce. This occurred subsequent to the dismissal of the Applicant which took place because the home was closing down.
4. Elsewhere in the decision the Tribunal found that the work offered to Miss Richards by Mrs Bruce was not a suitable alternative because it did not have the responsibility she had previously enjoyed. Accordingly it followed that she would have had a valid redundancy claim in any event. In our view, on a close examination of the extended reasons, we can find no place in which the Tribunal fell into error. Were this matter to proceed to full argument it would have no chance of success.
5. We wish to say finally a word about the principal complaint that the Tribunal acted on the oral evidence alone of the witnesses. That is why Tribunals alone are the judges of the facts. They see and hear the witnesses and they form a view of them. In this case they clearly formed a good view of the Applicant and that was confirmed by Mr Roberts himself when he said she was an honest and open person. With that rider we have to dismiss the appeal at this stage.