[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ahmed v. British Fittings (Birmingham) Ltd [2000] UKEAT 1424_99_0704 (7 April 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1424_99_0704.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1424_99_704, [2000] UKEAT 1424_99_0704

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON THE APPELLANT'S BEHALF


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK:

1. The appellant, Mr Ahmed was employed by the respondent as a storeman from 20th September 1982 until 30th April 1999, so an Employment Tribunal sitting at Birmingham on 8th October 1999 found in their decision, promulgated with extended reasons on 19th October, against which this appeal is brought.
2. Prior to January 1998 he worked full time, 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. per day. During that month it was agreed between the parties that he could go on to part-time working from 8 a.m. -1.15 p.m.
3. By mid-1998 the workload was such that at the respondent's goods distribution centre where the appellant worked, full time storemen's hours were changed from 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. to 10 a.m. - 7 p.m. In addition the respondent asked the appellant to change his hours to 1 p.m. - 7 p.m. He was unhappy with that arrangement but the tribunal found that he did agree to new hours of 1p.m. - 6 p.m.
4. It was his case that he could return to his normal hours at any time and that this was a purely temporary arrangement. However based on the appellant's own letter to the respondent dated 7th July 1999, in which he referred to the arrangement as being for "a trial period" and "provisional" and a letter from the respondent referring to a "trial period", the tribunal found that although originally for a trial period, that trial period lasted for at most three months, after which the respondent was entitled to regard the new arrangement as permanent.
5. The appellant worked the new hours, 1p.m. – 6p.m. without demure from 13th July 1998. On 27th January 1999 the respondent wrote to him altering his hours to 1.30 p.m. – 6 p.m.. He did not object.
6. On 22nd February 1999 the appellant informed the respondent that he would be reverting to his old hours of 8 a.m. – 1 p.m.. The respondent told him that was unacceptable.
7. On 4th March he attended work at 8 a.m. and was sent home and told to return at 1.30 p.m. He did not do so and never returned to work after that date.
8. A meeting took place on 26th March, but no resolution was reached. Eventually, when he did not return to work, the respondent wrote to him on 13th May 1999 saying that they assumed that he had terminated his employment and enclosed a form P45 and accrued holiday pay up to 30th April 1999.
9. By his Originating Application presented on 27th May 1999 the appellant made these claims: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, short payment of wages/holiday.
10. In dismissing those claims, on the facts as found, the tribunal reached the following conclusions:

(1) The appellant's persistent refusal to attend work for the afternoon shift, his trial period having impliedly expired three months after 13th July 1998, meant that he had terminated the employment and not the respondent. Accordingly there was no dismissal and his claims of both unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal failed. It follows that the tribunal found that the respondent was not in breach of contract.

(2) He was not entitled to unpaid wages in respect of the half-hour reduction in hours, to which he did not object, from 27th January 1999.

(3) He had received the full amount of outstanding holiday pay to which he was entitled.

11. The appellant does not appear at this preliminary hearing today. Instead he has written a letter to the EAT dated 23rd March 2000 which, together with his Notice of Appeal, we have taken into account in deciding whether the appeal raises any arguable point or points of law to go to a full hearing. The points which he takes appear to be these:

(1) Before altering his hours of work a 12-week notice period ought to have been given. It is correct that, for an employee with the appellant's length of service, if the respondent chose unilaterally to alter a term of his employment, that is without his consent, the correct course is to give notice of termination of the contract (12 weeks) coupled with an offer of employment on the new terms. That, is the effect of the tribunal's finding in respect of the trial period starting in July 1998.

(2) Next, he submits that the respondent failed to follow employment law by:

(a) giving him a written warning which he argued, and they agreed, should be a verbal warning in April 1998.

(b) He had refused to sign a letter from the respondent dated 2nd July 1998 as to his new hours. Thus it was of no effect as evidence of agreement between the parties.

(c) Although the respondent contended, and the tribunal accepted that the effective date of termination of the contract of employment was 30th April 1999, after that date the company sought to hold a disciplinary meeting at the end of May. Such a meeting should have taken place before termination.

In our view none of those matters bear materially on the Employment Tribunal's decision.

(3) The reason why the respondent wanted him to leave was because they had demoted him. That is a reference to his claim in the Originating Application that he had been demoted in May 1998 from telephone sales/enquiries, purchasing and storeman to storeman only. That was denied by the respondent in their Notice of Appearance who contended that he had been employed as a storeman throughout his employment. The tribunal apparently accepted the respondent's contention. They found that throughout his employment he was a storeman.

12. Having considered those points, which reflect the issues raised in his Notice of Appeal, we have concluded, for the reasons given, that this appeal discloses no arguable point of law. Accordingly it must be dismissed at this stage.