Appeal No.	 EAT/738/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 4 December 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MS S R CORBY
MISS A MACKIE OBE

MRS M PARNHAM T/A THE HAIRSTYLE CENTRE	APPELLANT

MISS K SHEPHERD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR 
REPRESENTATION
BY OR ON BEHALF OF 
THE APPELLANT	

JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1.	In this case there is no appearance by the Appellant.  We are not surprised in view of the indication given in her letter.  We have given attention to the letter she has written.

2.	We have considered the Employment Tribunal decision promulgated on 26 April 2000.  In a nutshell the Tribunal found that the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent made unlawful deductions from her wages in respect of holiday pay was well founded.  They ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of £133.  They found the Respondent acted in breach of Applicant’s contract of employment in failing to pay her during the period of notice of termination or in the alternative to pay her any money in lieu of that notice and the Respondent was ordered to pay under that head the sum of £66.50.  The Tribunal found that the Respondent’s counterclaim for compensation for breach of contract was not well founded and that was dismissed.

3.	Extended reasons were given for those findings.  We have looked carefully at those findings and we can see no errors of law.  We feel it ought to be said, as has been said on previous occasions, we are not here for a re-hearing to go into the facts again.  That is the role of the fact finding body which is the Employment Tribunal who at the end of the day heard the evidence.

4.	There is no reason that we can see where we can stigmatise any part of the Extended Reasons as being an error of law.  We have not had the benefit of hearing the Appellant’s oral argument.  We have done our best to look at her letter and work out matters in relation to that but at the end of the day we consider that there is no identifiable error of law to go to the full Tribunal.  The Appeal is therefore dismissed.