[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Tees & Hartlepool Port Authority Ltd v. Freer [2000] EAT 1476_99_2203 (22 March 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1476_99_2203.html Cite as: [2000] EAT 1476_99_2203

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Andrew Clarke One of Her Majesty's Counsel Messrs Jacksons Solicitors Innovation House Yarm Road Stockton on Tees TS18 3TN


 


JUDGE COLLINS:

1. This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal from an employment tribunal sitting at Thornaby on Tees whose extended reasons were promulgated on 8 November 1999. They decided that there had been an unlawful deduction of wages from the respondent in relation to 45 hours of sickness between 18 and 30 April 1999. The case turns entirely upon the construction of new conditions of employment for clerical workers and an associated sick pay scheme which came into operation by general agreement between employers and employees on 1 March 1999.
2. It is not necessary to say more for the purposes of this judgment than that the essential points turn on the meaning of the phrases "allocated attendance" and "normal hours". The tribunal dealt with these in paragraphs 30 to 34 of their decision, holding essentially that allocation under the scheme signified the process whereby it was decided in advance, whether informally or not, when the employees were expected to turn up and that if their sickness fell within such a period it was to be attributed as sick pay under the terms of the scheme.
3. The practical difference is that if the employers are right most sick absence will not count and the employee has to be sick in his own time, whereas if the employees are right the employee is entitled to be sick in the employers' time. In the present case it made a significant difference to what the employee had in hand at the end of the month. We think that the question of the construction of the scheme is one which is not free from difficulty and bear in mind that there will be a number of employees affected here for perhaps quite a few years. We think it right that the case should be fully argued so that an authoritative interpretation can be given. So we shall order that the case proceed to a full hearing.