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 >> Kids Campus Nursery School v Taylor [1993] UKEAT 772_92_0511 (5 November 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/772_92_0511.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 772_92_0511, [1993] UKEAT 772_92_511 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J BULL QC
MR T S BATHO
MR J D DALY
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR J QUARTLY
(Lay Representative)
JUDGE J BULL QC: This is the preliminary ex parte hearing of an appeal by "Kids Campus Nursery School" against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Birmingham on the 30th June 1992 by which it awarded a Miss A E Taylor compensation under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Wages Act 1986 in the sum of £623.90.
Mr Quartly, who appeared "in person" before us as he did before the Industrial Tribunal, concedes that without legal representation matters did not proceed in the way in which he would have wished before that Tribunal. He refers to the requirement of notice, which he tells us was contained in the terms of employment, but which document unfortunately, he did not produce at the hearing before that Industrial Tribunal. His complaint is that he did not make any unnotified deductions or any unlawful deductions from Miss Taylor's wages because she voluntarily accepted a reduction in her hours. It seems though, and he is courteous and frank enough to admit it to us, that this may not have been made plain before the Industrial Tribunal.
The matters put in short compass are these: Miss Taylor was employed by Mr Quartly as a nursery nurse between the 7th January and the 23rd August 1991. When she left his employ she made complaint that she received no itemised pay statement in respect of payment of wages since the week ending 28th June 1991. It was upon that issue that the Industrial Tribunal had to focus their minds. They made a very clear finding in paragraph 3(h) of their decision that the total by which Mr Quartly had underpaid Miss Taylor in the weeks ending 2nd, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th August, was a total of £515 and added this:
"He has not sought to justify those non-payments or under-payments in any of the terms mentioned in Section 1 of the Wages Act 1986. They are therefore unlawful deductions under the Act which he is ordered to repay in full."
They further go on to make a computation according to the requirement of the Act.
Unfortunately, it appears that Mr Quartly, as I have said, did not produce the documents upon which he relies, before the Industrial Tribunal. He concedes with frankness, which we respect, that he did not fully understand the point at issue, and failed it seems, to do himself justice to his own case.
The Industrial Tribunal had the privilege, which is indeed their privilege, and is by statute completely denied to us, because we are a Tribunal of law and not of fact, of hearing the evidence, of testing it and reaching their decision upon the facts before them. We can detect no error of law in this Industrial Tribunal and we cannot say that in any respect which is put forward, or any respect which occurs to us that this Industrial Tribunal acted in a way and reached a conclusion that no reasonable tribunal could have done upon the facts which were presented to it. We understand fully the way in which Mr Quartly has put his case to us with great courtesy. But we regret that in these circumstances we are constrained to dismiss his appeal and that we do.
