[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Edwards v. Marconi Corporation Plc [2001] UKEAT 0749_01_0211 (2 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0749_01_0211.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 749_1_211, [2001] UKEAT 0749_01_0211

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR S A EDWARDS (The Appellant in person)


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC

1. This is an appeal by Mr Edwards against a decision of an Employment Tribunal held at London Central on 28 March 2001. At this stage we have an Ex Parte application before us to determine whether or not there is an issue which should go to a Full Hearing.
2. Mr Edwards' claim was set out in these terms in his application to the Tribunal. In
   Box 1 when asked to specify the type of complaint he wrote:

"Performing duties as a Justice of the Peace, set out in S.50(1) of Employment Rights Act, 1996."

and in the details of the complaint Box 11 he wrote:

"I have been appointed a Justice of the Peace for Central London; and have sworn in before the Senior Judge as such.

Despite the proper officer of Marconi Corporation plc writing to me on 11^th November 1999, confirming: "… The company will offer reasonable time off for these duties, if you are accepted …", the current proper officer of the company now wishes not to permit such time off (!).

The company has said that I may not attend the mandatory 2 day training course on 20^th & 21^st February 2001. This is despite my having written on 22^nd November 2000 to that company officer; and again on 23^rd November 2000. The officer had said, on 27^th November 2000, that I may attend such course; only to withdraw this, on 23^rd January 2001. I explained that this was expressly contrary to S.50(1) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996. The officer seemed completely unaware of this (!)."

3. The conclusions of the Tribunal were set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 of their decision.

"12 The Tribunal then had to consider whether the Respondent had failed to permit Mr Edwards to take time off, and two matters were of consideration; firstly, the date of submission of the application to the Tribunal. On the date on which the application was submitted, that is 16 February and received by the Tribunal office on 19 February, it was clear that there had been no breach of the right to take time off as the Applicant had not even attempted to attend the course on 20 and 21 February. The Tribunal therefore consider that at the time the application was submitted there was no breach of Section 50(1). However, the Tribunal also went on to consider whether, subsequent to that, the Applicant had demonstrated that there was a breach and bore in mind that there is a difference between failing to permit and not giving permission to attend a course. It was clear from the evidence before the Tribunal that there was some confusion in the instructions that were given to the Applicant and, certainly in relation to the evidence given by Mr Cooper, that there was some confusion in his mind about whether the Applicant had permission to go on the course. However, it was clear that the Applicant did in fact take the time off from work, was not prevented from attending the course, and no disciplinary action followed on his return. Indeed, very shortly after his return to work on 23 February, he was informed by Mr Baldwin that he could have reasonable time off to pursue his duties. The Applicant was in fact therefore permitted to take time off even if explicit permission was not granted.

13 The Tribunal therefore consider that the Applicant has failed to make out that there has been a breach of Section 50(1) and therefore the claim under Section 50(1) of the Act is dismissed."

4. The grounds of appeal are set out as follows:

"Knowing this was the 1^st ever, testing of S.50(1) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 (and the various previous Acts covering this matter for 40 years, or so), the Tribunal incorrectly applied/interpreted that paragraph of the 1996 Act.

There are various errors in the "Reasons", some mentioned in my 1^st May 2001 fax (attached); not corrected:- and there are others in the "Extended Reasons"(!)."

5. As Mr Edwards as a Justice of the Peace will be aware, the Employment Appeal Tribunal can deal only with questions of law. He has failed to identify to us what the error of law is supposed to be in the decision of the Tribunal. We have been unable to understand in what way it said that the Tribunal incorrectly applied or interpreted that paragraph of the 1996 Act. The Section has stood now in various forms for a very long period and has so far not attracted judicial decision. The reason for that is because there is no room for doubt about its meaning. So far as the errors in the reasons that are mentioned, these are matters on which Mr Edwards says that the Tribunal erred in fact. They are not matters which the Employment Appeal Tribunal could deal with, even if they were relevant.
6. It seems to us that on the findings of fact made the Tribunal were clearly right in their decision so far as this application is concerned. We understand from Mr Edwards that he has other ongoing disputes with his employer and that he has claims both for what he describes as wrongful deduction of pay (when he has sat as a JP and not been paid) and also because he says that he was not permitted to take time off during his working hours for the purpose of sitting as a JP. What the outcome of those complaints will be is not for us to say. Those will have to be dealt with on the facts which are proved to the respective Tribunals which deal with those matters.
7. So far as this matter is concerned, as we have said, there is no identifiable point of law and there is no reason why this appeal should go any further. It will therefore be dismissed at this stage.