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 >> Dunlop Tyres Ltd v. Blows & Ors [1999] UKEAT 350_99_2005 (20 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/350_99_2005.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 350_99_2005 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D J JENKINS MBE
MR A E R MANNERS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
| For the Appellants | MR D BEAN QC Instructed by MESSRS ANTHONYCOLLINS St. Philip's Gate 5 Waterloo Street Birmingham B2 5PG |
JUDGE CLARK: This appeal raises a short point of construction.
By the terms of a collective agreement, incorporated into the Applicant's contract of employment, provision was made for overtime pay and holidays.
It appears that for many years Dunlop made payment for statutory or bank holidays worked out on the basis of what was in effect triple time plus a day off in lieu. The employer then considered that such payments were not in fact due under the terms of the contract. Their case was that entitlement was to double time plus a day off in lieu. When that new payment regime started, the Applicants brought claims for unlawful deductions from wages.
An Employment Tribunal sitting at Birmingham upheld their complaints. Against that decision this appeal is brought. It seems to us that the appeal raises a pure question of law and is arguable on the basis of the construction of a contractual term advanced on behalf of the employer.
A subsidiary question arises as to whether or not the Tribunal took into account how the payments were in fact calculated and if they did, whether that was an impermissible approach at law for the purpose of construing an express written term of the contract.
In these circumstances we shall permit the matter to proceed to a full appeal hearing as presently constituted. The appeal will be listed for ½ a day, Category B. There will be exchange of Skeleton Arguments between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those Skeleton Arguments to be lodged with this Tribunal at the same time.
