[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Pittel v Free Press Group [1997] UKEAT 262_97_2204 (22 April 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/262_97_2204.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 262_97_2204

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR D L REES (Representative) Jasmine House Kingston Stert Nr Chinnor Oxon OX9 4NL


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Miss Debbie Pittel was employed by the Free Press Group as a probationer. She was given a written contract of employment but in November 1995, at the date of that contract, she was told it was for a probationary period of three months.

In January 1996 she and many other members of the staff were given new contracts which stated they were subject to a six months probationary period. She made a complaint, when her employment was terminated, that there had been a breach of contract and sex discrimination. Her complaint was received by an Industrial Tribunal on 3 August 1996. There was a Notice of Appearance by the Respondent, Westminster Press Ltd, who gave as a reason for her dismissal, "failure to satisfactorily complete her probationary period".

There was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal sitting in Reading on 29 October 1996 and 26 November 1996, when Miss Pittel was represented by Mr Rees, a consultant who appears before us this morning on her behalf. The Tribunal dismissed her application for breach of contract and sex discrimination. The Tribunal awarded her the sum of £583.78 in respect of an additional 17 days pay to which she was entitled in lieu of contractual notice.

From that decision a Notice of Appeal has been signed on her behalf by Mr Rees, which is not altogether in the normal form of a Notice of Appeal, but what we understand is that there are complaints about the findings of fact made by the Industrial Tribunal. We have to say that the Extended Reasons could have been more clearly expressed, but we are in no doubt of the findings as to what happened.

What appears to have happened is this. Miss Pittel was taken on as a probationer in November 1995 for a three month probationary period. In January that was replaced by a contract when she was given a statement of proposed contract stating that she was to be a probationer for six months. She accepted that position and at the end of six months of the probationary period, ie early in July 1996 she was asked to go. The next month she alleged in her IT1 that she was wrongly dismissed, claiming sex discrimination.

In our judgment, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal was entitled to make findings of fact that Miss Pittel was never more than a probationer in the employ of the Respondent and we are satisfied that there has been no breach of contract as has been alleged in the Notice of Appeal and by Mr Rees in his skeleton argument, on which he elaborated in his submissions. In our judgment, on the facts as found by the Industrial Tribunal, albeit that they could have been more clearly expressed, we are satisfied that they came to the right decision. The lack of clarity can be criticised, but there is no error in law.

In the circumstances, it would be wrong to let this appeal go to a further stage. We therefore dismiss it now.