BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Leung v South Coast Nursing Homes Ltd [1991] UKEAT 15_91_2205 (22 May 1991) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/15_91_2205.html Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 15_91_2205 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MRS R CHAPMAN
MR G H WRIGHT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MISS H LEUNG
(In person)
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): Miss Leung appeals to us from a Decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Brighton under the Chairmanship of Mr Hows on 7 September 1990, when they dismissed her application. Her application was under Section 53 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. She was alleging that a written statement of the reason for her dismissal by her employers, South Coast Nursing Homes Ltd was untrue.
The Appellant, Miss Leung, has written to us; sent us a number of documents and has indicated that perhaps she was at some disadvantage in presenting her case. Let us say at once that at this Preliminary Hearing she has presented her case with ability and forcefully and we have understood the many points which she wished to make.
The basic fact however, with which she is faced, is that she was employed by the South Coast Nursing Home Ltd from the 1 May 1989 until the 12 March 1990, she therefore does not have the qualifying period for presenting a case for unfair dismissal.
When she was dismissed, she was dismissed because of an incident. She went to see a solicitor, and he wrote asking for the "reasons" because it had been a summary dismissal. The "reasons" were given in a letter of the 12 March 1990 indicating as follows:
"You have been dismissed following the incidents last Thursday, 8th March, when you became involved in first a dispute and later a brawl with another member of staff. We consider that such behaviour constitutes gross misconduct and is incomparable with your continued employment with this company."
She had been employed at the nursing home as a nursing assistant.
Not being satisfied with that letter; and in the belief in her own mind that what she wanted aired was the unfairness of her dismissal; she issued proceeding and those proceedings went to a hearing. The judgment of the Industrial Tribunal is very short indeed. It refers to Section 53 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, her allegation that the reason given was inadequate or untrue; they refer to the letter giving the reason; they then say this in paragraph 4:
"Miss Leung did not assert that the reasons were insufficiently particularised, nor did she suggest that some other reason was in the mind of the employers than that stated. It was clear to the members of the Tribunal that Miss Leung accepted that she had been involved in a fight and that the Respondents had dismissed her because they believed that she had started the fight. She argued that the employers were mistaken in their belief that she was responsible."
The Tribunal therefore found that the provisions of the Act had been satisfied; that the reasons given were adequate and indeed were the true reasons in the mind of the employers. They were looking of course at the truth of the reason and not at the validity of the reason.
Before us Miss Leung has raised a number of matters; she has alleged that the appeal procedures were not adequate or fair; she has alleged that she was being used as a scapegoat and that the dismissal was unfair; she has suggested that she ought to have received further monies than she did receive. In fact she has dealt really with allegations that might have been brought, only might, under the Wages Act and allegations which would have been relevant had this been a case of unfair dismissal.
We return to the fundamental fact here that she does not have the sufficient qualifying period for bringing proceedings for unfair dismissal. Therefore, the only issue, and we must impress that upon her, that in law the only issue before the Industrial Tribunal was the issues under Section 53 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 we are limited in our jurisdiction to errors of law and we are quite unable to find any error of law in the Decision reached upon the only issue which was before them, we hope that we have impressed that upon Miss Leung. The issues of unfair dismissal; disciplinary procedures; wages are not, and were not relevant to the issue before the Industrial Tribunal. It follows therefore, inevitably, that we can find no error of law and this Appeal must be dismissed at this stage, which it is.
