 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> King & Anor (t/a Orwell House Restaurant) v Gear [1993] UKEAT 456_91_1802 (18 February 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/456_91_1802.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 456_91_1802 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE
MISS A P VALE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR D T KING
(Representative)
For the Respondent MR J F GEAR
(In Person)
JUDGE HARGROVE QC: The Respondent in this case was a Chef/Manager, at the Orwell House Restaurant in Ipswich, from June 1986 until 9th February 1991.
The appeal before us raises a number of issues of fact and I shall come to those in due course. In January 1991 the Tribunal found that the restaurant was losing money and the Appellants were endeavouring to cut cost. The Respondent was asked to broaden the approach of the restaurant, so the Tribunal held, but he refused to do so on the basis that that was going "down market" and would damage his reputation as a Chef.
The first problem which arises is this: the Appellants have vigorously contested that they ever asked Mr Gear to take a cut in salary. They say that the finding by the Tribunal was wrong and that there was never a suggestion there should be cut in salary but he should continue at the same rate, indeed, that is part of the evidence given by Mr King at the original hearing. Unfortunately, the Tribunal came to the opposite view, and upon that basis it is a finding of fact. That finding of fact is one over which we have no power. There was evidence upon which the Tribunal was entitled to come to that view, although it may not be a view which any of the Members of this Tribunal would have reached. Therefore there is nothing in that aspect of the case.
The second point is that the Tribunal obviously did not accept that an offer had been made to Mr Gear to continue at exactly the same rate.
The Appellants are incensed because they believe, and they have very good evidence for their belief, that Mr Gear was in negotiation with a rival firm and indeed, joined them very shortly afterwards. However, the Tribunal found that in fact upon the 9th February Mr Gear was made redundant. That again is a finding of fact and the fact that they have rejected the approach suggested by Mr King is, unfortunately, a matter over which we have no control.
Accordingly, we have no alternative but to dismiss this appeal.