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 >> Darkwa v. NCP/sureway Ltd [2001] UKEAT 0741_00_0606 (6 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0741_00_0606.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 741__606, [2001] UKEAT 0741_00_0606 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MS G MILLS
MR J R RIVERS
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
For the Appellant | THE APPELLANT IN PERSON |
JUDGE PETER CLARK
(1) That the Respondent's unilateral switch from weekly to monthly pay did not amount to a breach of contract, because the Appellant continued to work under the new arrangement and accepted a £50 allowance, paid by the Respondent, to buy out the former weekly wage arrangement.
(2) That far from there being any deductions from his wages, he had in fact been overpaid between January and June 1999 in the sum of £238.17. That claim was withdrawn by the Appellant.
(3) That there had been no failure to provide him with a safe working environment, amounting to a fundamental breach of the contract of employment, in requiring him to work in freshly-painted kiosks.
(4) Accordingly he was not constructively dismissed within the meaning of Section 95(1)(c) of Employment Rights Act 1996.
(1) The Tribunal failed to pay attention to the provisions of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974.
(2) That they failed to consider whether the Respondent had subjected the Appellant to a detriment, contrary to Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
That section deals with Health & Safety activities and consequent detrimental action, in an employment sense, taken by the employer against the employee and not the effects on the employee's health. It does not, in these circumstances, appear to us to have been relevant in this case, nor indeed raised before the Employment Tribunal.
(3) That the Respondent's witnesses perjured themselves.
(4) The Tribunal's decision was perverse.