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 >> Davey & Ors v Group 4 Nightspeed Ltd [1994] UKEAT 668_93_1002 (10 February 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/668_93_1002.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 668_93_1002 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC
MRS E HART
MISS C HOLROYD
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR T R NAYLOR
(EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ADVISER)
Personnel Advisory Services
49 Warrington Road
Cuddington
Cheshire
CW8 2LN
JUDGE LEVY QC: Messrs Davey, Webb and Roberts were three employees of Group 4 Nightspeed Ltd who were dismissed on the grounds of redundancy on 31 October 1993. All three of them claimed they were unfairly dismissed and the union agreement on the redundancy was not followed.
There was a hearing by the Southampton Tribunal and that Tribunal dismissed their claim and there was an application for a review of that hearing which was heard by the Chairman and on 8 July 1993 he refused their application.
It seems, from what we have been told by Mr Naylor this morning, that the union did not represent the three Applicants below because they thought they would get an award, without such representation, that is res inter alios acto - it is nothing to do with us. It seems to us that the findings of fact below are impeccable, as are the findings of law. We can see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the decisions which were reached.
In the circumstances, we have no alternative other than to dismiss this appeal.
