[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Braganca v Ethymiou & Anor [1996] UKEAT 318_96_2310 (23 October 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/318_96_2310.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 318_96_2310

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing relating to an appeal from the London (North) Industrial Tribunal delivered on 17th January 1996. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal, was that the applicant now the appellant, had been unfairly dismissed and they awarded him compensation in the amount of £8,006.74.

The appellant had been employed by the respondent company in various guises since 1986. That was accepted by both parties to the hearing. His employment terminated on 8th July 1995. The circumstances were quite shortly that, in March 1995, the appellant was told the respondents were going to re-organise the premises so as to include a bar. He was invited to apply for the position of barman, and told that there would be an enhanced salary in it for him. He did not make up his mind on the spot, but went on holiday in June before he had done so. When he returned he was given his P45, which is usually indicative that a person's employment has been terminated. He was somewhat puzzled by this, and when he raised the matter with management, he was told that instead of getting an enhanced salary, he would have to take a cut of something like £5,600 a year. When he expostulated about that, he was told he had to take it or leave it. He was not willing to take a cut of that size, and as a result, he was told he had to go.

The matter came before the Industrial Tribunal. It was suggested by the respondents that there was a redundancy situation here. That was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal, and they found that the offer of such a substantial cut in salary amounted to a fundamental breach. They found there had also been no consultation, and as a result they decided the dismissal was unfair. They then made the compensatory award which I have already referred to.

In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant indicated that he thought the tribunal had wrongly calculated the number of weeks for which he is entitled to be compensated in the basic award. Mr Braganca has attended before us today to tell us that he was wrong in his own calculations and the Industrial Tribunal was right, and accordingly he takes no further point on that.

There was a further problem relating to the manner in which the documentation was dealt with before the Industrial Tribunal. However, it has been pointed out by a member of this tribunal that the Industrial Tribunal expressly said in their reasons that they were unaffected in their decisions by any of the documentation put in because they thought it was irrelevant. Therefore on both scores, Mr Braganca now is happy and content with the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.

Accordingly there is nothing remaining to go forward to a further hearing. It is therefore appropriate that we should dismiss this appeal. But having said that, we should make it plain this is a dismissal with Mr Braganca's consent because he has effectively withdrawn the substance of the points he wished to raise upon that appeal.