 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bais v Planned Maintenance Engineering Ltd [1992] UKEAT 643_92_0211 (2 November 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/643_92_0211.html Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 643_92_0211, [1992] UKEAT 643_92_211 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR T S BATHO
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO REPRESENTATION BY
OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr Bais from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) on the 6th May 1992 under the Chairmanship of Mr Flint, who rejected his allegation that he had been unfairly dismissed by Planned Maintenance Engineering Ltd.
This was a question of redundancy, the re-arrangement of the internal staff workings of this Company were such that they needed a qualified plumber for a particular post. Mr Bais was not a qualified plumber his particular appointment therefore, his job, became redundant and he was chosen for redundancy.
The Tribunal, in an admirably short decision deal with the issues in paragraph 4 where they say:
"Our view is that Mr Livermore [he was the Director of the Company] established to us that a redundancy situation existed. This redundancy situation had come about because of a diminution in the work which the respondents had to carry out at the site where the applicant worked. We are also satisfied from Mr Livermore's evidence that the applicant was not capable of carrying out the full duties of a plumber and that Mr Livermore's decision to select a person to be employed to carry out those full duties and to dismiss the applicant was a fair and proper one in the circumstances. Consequently we find that the dismissal of the applicant was fair and his claim is dismissed."
In his Notice of Appeal the Applicant, whose Solicitors Messrs Hoseins, who do not appear, allege that there was no redundancy. That is a question of fact. It was clearly properly found. They claim it was an unreasonable conclusion but they do not state what the errors are to make it perverse, and they say they did not take into account the hours worked in overtime. That again is a question of fact.
It is a hopeless appeal and must be dismissed.