[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Elkouil v. Coney Island Ltd [2000] UKEAT 520_00_2306 (23 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/520_00_2306.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 520__2306, [2000] UKEAT 520_00_2306

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A OHRINGER (Representative) Free Representation Unit Fourth Floor Peer House 8-14 Verulam Street London WC1X 8LZ


 


MISS RECORDER SLADE QC: This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Elkouil against the decision of an Employment Tribunal entered in the Register on 15th March 2000 against the amount of compensation of £458 awarded for unfair dismissal. That amount was calculated on the basis of two week's pay.

1. Mr Elkouil had been employed by Coney Island Ltd as a credit controller at members' nightclub from October 1996 until the termination of his employment on 27th July 1999.
2. The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Elkouil had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. It held that his dismissal was unfair for lack of consultation. It went on to find that had consultation taken place, he would have been employed for a further two weeks and that was the basis of the award of compensation.
3. The Employment Tribunal had before it an Originating Application, which raised, in addition to the question of consultation, a complaint that Mr Elkouil had been given no prior warning of his dismissal and had not been offered an alternative post.
4. The Tribunal made findings on attempts made to find an alternative post, but made no findings as to warning of redundancy. The Tribunal found that Mr Elkouil's manager looked for alternative employment for him on 20th July 1999. It is arguable, on the basis of that finding, that the company must have known of the proposed redundancy by 20th July at the very latest and that, in those circumstances and in accordance with good industrial practice there should have been prior warning of the impending redundancy. We say that is an arguable point to take, we are not saying by any means that it is going to succeed. However, we consider that it is arguable to say that it was perverse not to reflect the consequence of a failure to warn of an impending redundancy in the amount of compensation to be awarded.
5. Accordingly we allow this appeal to proceed. We consider a time estimate of one hour to be appropriate. Skeleton arguments to be exchanged not less than seven days before the hearing.