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 >> Corns v Whelley Labour Club, Committee & Trustees of [1998] UKEAT 681_98_0110 (1 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/681_98_0110.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 681_98_110, [1998] UKEAT 681_98_0110 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON
MR T C THOMAS CBE
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
LORD JOHNSTON: This is a preliminary hearing in relation to the appeal by Mr David Corns against the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that there was no contractual right to sick pay in his contract with the respondents and, in addition, he had not been dismissed constructively from his employment, albeit he was entitled to a small payment of wages wrongfully withheld. Mr Corns intimated to this tribunal that he did not intend to appear in person.
Upon a reading of the decision of the tribunal, it is quite apparent to us that in considering the issue of constructive dismissal, the tribunal examined the salient factors that were raised, said to constitute sufficiently serious conduct on the part of the employer, to amount to a breach of a material term of a contract of employment going to its root, so as to justify resignation being categorised as constructive dismissal. Looking at the issues in relation to Bank Holidays and Christmas payments, we consider the tribunal were more than entitled to reach the conclusion they did upon the evidence that these were not sufficiently grave issues to amount to fundamental breach of contract. In addition, it was clear that there was no contractual right to sick pay and that position was not arguable.
In these circumstances, so far as the appeal is directed towards that issue and that of constructive dismissal, we consider that it is unarguable and it will be dismissed. The finding in relation to the award of £70 gross will stand.
