[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hassan v. Muslim Aid [2000] UKEAT 412_00_1707 (17 July 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/412_00_1707.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 412__1707, [2000] UKEAT 412_00_1707

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	The Appellant in Person


 


JUDGE CLARK

1. The Appellant, Mr Hassan was employed by the Respondent charity as its director from 10 January 1994 until his summary dismissal on 30 January 1999.
2. By an Origination Application presented to the Employment Tribunal on 28 April 1999 he complained that his dismissal was both statutorily unfair and wrongful at Common Law. He also alleged unauthorised deductions from his wages.
3. There were 3 hearings in this case before the London (North) Employment Tribunal.
4. On the first occasion on 21 July 1999 Counsel then appearing for the Respondent, Mr Egan, conceded that the dismissal was unfair and that if the Respondent successfully resisted the Appellant's claim for the remedy of reinstatement or re-engagement, then it was further conceded that the Respondent would pay to the Appellant a maximum award by way of compensation for unfair dismissal, that is a compensatory award of £12,000 and a basic award of £1,100. On that basis the matter was adjourned to a further hearing to take place on 9 - 10  November 1999.
5. The second hearing took place on those dates before an Employment Tribunal chaired by Mr G Flint (the Flint Tribunal).
6. On that occasion, as appears from the Employment Tribunals decision promulgated on 11 January 2000, (the liability decision), the following issues, among others were considered and determined: -

(1) Was the Appellant wrongfully dismissed? The Employment Tribunal found that he was. It was conceded that under his contract of employment he was entitled to 4 months notice

(2) Was he entitled to the remedy of reinstatement or re-engagement? The Employment Tribunal found that he was not. Accordingly the concessions made at the first hearing were put into effect. The Appellant was entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal totalling £13,100.

(3) Unauthorised deductions from wages:

(i) was the Appellant entitled to a payment of £500 per annum as a car allowance, which he claimed for 3 years?

Clause 4 of his contract provided;

"The employee to receive an annual allowance of £500. This would apply towards the use of an employee's personal car and on rare occasions for Muslim Aid business."

The Appellant contended that he was entitled to £500 per annum as a car allowance. The Respondent contended that the terms provided for sums up to £500 for the use of his car on their business.

The Employment Tribunal preferred the Appellant's construction. He was to receive an annual allowance of £500 in recognition of the fact that he did use his car for the Respondent's business.

Accordingly there had been an unauthorised deduction from his wages in that no car allowance was paid during 1998 (£500) or in January 1999 (one – twelfth of that figure) (liability decision paragraph 11(1)).

(ii) The Employment Tribunal were not persuaded that the Appellant was entitled to carry holiday entitlement over to the next holiday year. He was entitled to some pay in lieu of holiday for January 1999, which would be assessed at a further remedies hearing.

7. The Employment Tribunal left over to that remedies hearing further issues as to any overlap between compensation for unfair dismissal and damages for wrongful dismissal.
8. The third hearing took place before the Flint Tribunal on 24 January 2000. On that occasion the following issues were considered and determined by a decision promulgated with extended reasons on 7 February 2000 (the remedies decision).

(1) In addition to 4 months notice entitlement, for how long would the Appellant's employment have continued had a proper disciplinary procedure been followed? The Employment Tribunal found, by reference to disciplinary proceedings brought against the secretary of the Respondent, that his employment would have been extended by a further 4 months. Consequently, damages for wrongful dismissal were assessed at 4 months net pay for failure to follow the contractual disciplinary procedure plus 4 months pay in lieu of notice; a total of £15,850 (remedies decision paragraph 8(i)).

(2) They found that the Appellant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. The statutory maximum compensatory award conceded by the Respondent reflected some 6 months lost earnings. The Employment Tribunal thought it was not unreasonable that the Appellant would take 14 months in which to find alternative employment. Accordingly there was no element of double recovery as between the compensation for unfair dismissal and damages for wrongful dismissal. Both sums, respectively £13,100 and £15,880 were awarded.

(3) As to the unauthorised deductions from wages claim they awarded:

(i) £541, representing loss of car allowance for the period 1 January 1998 - 31 January 1999.

(ii) 2 days holiday pay for the month of January 1999, £175 (see the remedies decision, paragraph 8(iii))

The Appeal

9. The appeal is directed to the Employment Tribunals calculation of damages for wrongful dismissal. Mr Hassan argues 2 points, both in relation to the notional 8 month period following summary termination at the end of January 1999 to reflect his contractual notice period and the time it would have taken to complete the disciplinary procedure. First he submits that the annual car allowance ought to be pro rated for that 8 month period. Secondly he submits that although holiday could not be rolled over from one calendar year to the next, if at the end of that 8 month period he had taken no holiday he would then have been entitled to 20 days accrued holiday pay. We think that the argument as to the car allowance is stronger than that in relation to the holiday pay but we shall permit both points to proceed to a full hearing.
10. We have not seen the written contract of employment and a copy should be lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal at the same time as skeleton arguments in this case, that is 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be exchanged between the parties at the same time. We shall list the case for 2 hours category C; there is no requirement for Chairman's Notes of Evidence. No further directions are necessary.