[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Reed v. East Riding of Yorkshire Council [1999] UKEAT 104_99_2304 (23 April 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/104_99_2304.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 104_99_2304

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance by or on behalf of the Appellant


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in an appeal against a decision promulgated on 30 November 1998 of an Employment Tribunal Chairman sitting alone in Hull. By that decision he held that the Applicant's claim that there had been an unlawful deduction from his wages, failed. Mr Reed, the employee, appeals.

The relevant facts are that Mr Reed once was employed by the Humberside County Council as a fitter mechanic at their central repair depot in Beverley. In 1991 he suffered an accident at work which damaged his hearing and he was then redeployed as a driver assistant. On 25 March 1991 the Council wrote to him, telling him that his grade of pay had been scaled to personal protection, class person grade 1. That jargon seems to indicate that he was accorded a special position so far as pay is concerned. The letter went on to state "you had received a fixed bonus of £52 per week, no additional enhanced pay or overtime will be paid unless the value of these payments accedes the protected figure, in which case you will not receive a protected amount."

In 1996 the Humberside County Council was broken up into four successor authorities and Mr Reed's employment was transferred to one of those authorities, East Riding County Council. On 27 March 1996, East Riding wrote to Mr Reed offering him a post in respect of the same job, and the terms on which it was prepared to do so, were East Riding terms and conditions. The letter says:

"You will continue on your existing terms and conditions until they are replaced in whole or in part by those adopted by the East Riding Council following negotiations with the appropriate Trade Unions. The National Detriment Scheme will apply where necessary."

What thereafter happened was that the protected payments Mr Reed had been promised by the Humberside County Council, and initially accepted by the East Riding County Council, were eroded. The East Riding Council states that the protected bonuses he had been promised would in fact be removed by April 1999.

The first issue arising was whether there had been a transfer to which the TUPE Regulations applied. The Employment Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was. The next question was whether the erosion of his protected payment rights was a variation of the contract, prohibited by the Regulations, or which was permitted because the variation took place outside the scope and terms of those regulations. The Employment Tribunal came to the conclusion that the variation was brought about the financial stringency of the new County Council to which he had been transferred and so was out with the restraints of those Regulations.

Apparently (and it is a fact which was not disputed) the East Riding Council began life with a deficit of some £20 million which had to be recouped by savings, especially on payments such as salaries and so on. That, according to the Chairman was the reason for the erosion of Mr Reed's rights. He came to the conclusion that that had nothing to do with the transfer so had to implicate the TUPE Regulations. On the face of it, that is a finding of fact and would seem to be a point which is not capable of further argument before this Tribunal.

We have looked at the Notice of Appeal to see whether it raises an arguable point of law. Unhappily it raises none. Completed by Mr Reed, all it says is: "The deductions have taken place from my salary made in error in law, not finding in my favour." That seems to be a clear enough indication that he wishes to appeal but it does not outline any point of law upon which such an appeal may be raised.

Thereafter one hoped that perhaps Mr Reed would appear before us in order to indicate further, and with greater detail, the point he wished to make. Unhappily, and one can well understand having regard to the expense and cost of travelling from Hull, he has not attended before us today. Notwithstanding that, we have scrutinized the judgment, with a view to considering whether there was some arguable point of law we could detect which would enable us to forward the case to a full hearing. However we have been unable to do so. The judgment of the Employment Tribunal Chairman is a careful judgment, analyses all the issues and would seem to us to raise no arguable point of law. In those circumstances we must dismiss the appeal at this stage.