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 >> Singh v Robertson Tooling Ltd [1992] UKEAT 41_92_2112 (21 December 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/41_92_2112.html Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 41_92_2112 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR T S BATHO
MR D O GLADWIN CBE JP
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR
REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): By an Originating Application dated 28th February 1991, Mr Singh complained of unfair selection for redundancy alleging that he had been unfairly treated by his employers Robertson Tooling Limited.
His case was heard by an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Bedford under the Chairmanship of Mr Drysdale on the 18th November 1991. The Tribunal unanimously decided against him. He appeared in person. His employers were represented by the Mid Anglian Engineering Employers' Association.
The Notice of Appeal alleges issues which are, in essence, issues of fact. An appeal to this Appeal Tribunal is only valid on a point of law.
Mr Singh was employed by the Respondents from the 21st November 1988 until his employment was terminated by his dismissal on the grounds of redundancy with effect from the 18th January 1991. The problems arose in late 1990 and early 1991. The employers had some 165 staff they were reduced progressively and ultimately there came a time when there needed to be some compulsory redundancies. The Company, quite properly, consulted the recognised trade union, they discussed the matters, they decided on the principles of selection to be applied. The Tribunal deal with it in paragraph 2 of the decision saying:
"On the 9 January 1991 a notice was issued stating that persons would be considered for redundancy `according to the following criteria: the prime factor will be the overall interests of the company, with particular regard to ability, versatility and reliability of individual persons. Subject to the above, consideration will also be given to length of service and notification given by individuals to their supervisors of their wish to be made redundant. This notification must be given by 12 noon on Thursday, 10 January 1991.'"
In accordance with that points were awarded and the whole matter was dealt with in accordance with the agreed procedure with the trade union. The points received by Mr Singh were such that he fell within the bracket of those to be made redundant, in fact, there were two interviews in January on the 15th and the latter one of them, the Tribunal find, that in fact Mr Singh had no real objection, and said he would wish to be considered for employment if work improved.
Those are the basic facts, he did not appeal. On those facts, which I have set out very generally and outlined, it seems to us that no one could suggest that the employers had not acted perfectly correctly in accordance with good industrial practice. This was an issue of fact there is no error of law. Mr Singh does not appear today, this appeal must be dismissed.
