[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Levy & Ors v Tarmac Construction Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1338_98_0503 (5 March 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1338_98_0503.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1338_98_503, [1999] UKEAT 1338_98_0503

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	THE FIRST APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: This is an appeal by five applicants who formerly worked for Tarmac Construction Ltd, ["the Company"]. They claimed by various applications to the Employment Tribunal in Nottingham that they had been unfairly dismissed. The Company's answer was that they had been made redundant pursuant to a properly conducted redundancy exercise. There was a hearing before an Employment Tribunal sitting at Nottingham on 22nd June 1998, when three of the appellants were in person and two had the benefit, if that was what it was, of representation from a union official. The tribunal's decision with extended reasons was sent to the parties on 25th August 1998. In short, at paragraph 27 the tribunal said:

"We have unanimously concluded that the selection for redundancy was fair for the reasons stated. Accordingly, the applications fail as the respondent has satisfied the requirements of section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996."

From that decision Mr Colin Levy appears before us this morning on behalf of all the appellants at the preliminary hearing.

Mr Levy has had the advantage of seeing an ELAAS representative before coming into court and he candidly has told us that he understands that there is no point of law which really arises on the appeal. His and his colleagues' complaint appears to be that they were not well served by the union representative who looked after all their cases below, albeit that the decision states that she was only representing two of the five appellants.

We have sympathy with the appellants, for example, Mr Levy who had been with the Company for seven years before the redundancy exercise took place. On the evidence before the tribunal, however it was entitled to reach the decision it did on the way the matters were presented to it and on the evidence before it. As we have explained to Mr Levy, no second hearing is permitted by this tribunal when there has been a fair hearing in an Employment Tribunal and no point of law arises as a result of its decision. In the circumstances, we have, as we have explained to Mr Levy, no alternative other than to dismiss this appeal. We thank him for his helpful submissions to us.