[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Rosier (t/a Damp Roofing Company of Hereford) v. Bevan [2001] UKEAT 1374_00_0604 (6 April 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1374_00_0604.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1374__604, [2001] UKEAT 1374_00_0604

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO ATTENDANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE HOOPER

1. This is an appeal against the unanimous decision of the Employment Tribunal (Chairman Mr B Lloyd) that the Respondent's breach of contract claim succeeded and awarding the Respondent the sum of £357.06 in respect of unpaid holiday pay.
2. Due to work commitments the Appellant is unable to attend. We turn first of all to the Appeal Notice itself which states in paragraph 6:

"Whilst in our employment for 10 months, the applicant Mr T Bevan was paid in full for a total of 16 days holiday. His entitlement. However upon the tribunals decision they have furthermore granted the applicant an extra 6 days holiday pay. This bringing the applicant a total of 22 days paid holiday over a 10 month period. The employment law clearly states that an employee is entitled to a total of 20 days holiday over a 12 month period."

3. In a letter dated 17 March we find the following passage:

"I was contacted by a client of The Damp-Proofing Company on Friday 9^th March 2001, who informed me that Mr T G Bevan had been in contact with him the previous night. My client was rather concerned in the way that Mr Bevan had contacted him, as he felt that Mr T G Bevan had harassed him, to provide a number of answers to questions that Mr Bevan had put together. My client informed Mr Bevan that I myself, had never discussed his terms and conditions or any aspect of this case with him, and that he did not want to get involved with such matters. At this point Mr Bevan became verbally aggressive and made a number of allegations, to defame both myself and The Damp-Proofing Company to my client, of which The Damp-Proofing Company has over a period of time, carried out numerous contracts. We therefore feel that this action on Mr Bevan's part has been an attempt to cause financial damage to The Damp-Proofing Company. This cause of action by Mr Bevan appears that, as in his original application, Mr Bevan is still confused over his contract of employment, of which he had received a copy of whilst in our employment, and on a number of occasions Mr Bevan has blatantly lied about receiving his copy.

It has also come to our attention through a number of contacts within the building industry, that Mr Bevan set out on this cause of action, with the intention of, in his words "Screwing The Damp-Proofing Company, for as much as he can get, as this will be of no cost to himself".

We are however at this point seeking legal advise on a number of issues relating to this case. Firstly being the slanderous allegations against the Damp-Proofing Company made by Mr Bevan, and secondly the attempt by Mr Bevan to obtain money by deceit through the industrial Tribunal system."

We do not find that letter helpful in resolving the issues which we have to consider.

4. In his IT1 the Respondent stated when he had started work in July 1999 it was verbally agreed that he would have 4 weeks holiday plus bank holidays. He then sets out what holidays he had in fact enjoyed and makes his claim to 6.6 days. In the IT3 the Respondent states only:

"Upon checking our holiday records, it has confirmed that Mr Bevan, up until his departure, had received his full holiday entitlement, 16 DAYS. Evidence of this will be submitted at any future hearing of this case."

5. The Tribunal gave summary reasons which for the purposes of this hearing and by reason of the letter of 22 September (page 2 of the EAT bundle) we shall treat as the extended reasons. The Tribunal heard both the Applicant and Mr Stephen Rosier. They found that the Applicant had been employed as a plasterer by the Respondent between 19 July 1999 and 12 May 2000. On that latter date they found that Mr Bevan resigned his employment after giving two weeks' notice. The applicant's claim is, as we have said, for unpaid holiday pay. They made the following findings of fact in paragraph 4:

"The applicant was entitled as part of his terms and conditions of employment to 20 days per annum holiday plus bank holidays. That was provided in an oral agreement between the parties at the commencement of employment. We do not accept the validity of the "statement of employment" dated 13 August 1999 (Document R1) which has been produced by the respondent. We find that, during the course of his employment, the applicant took a total of ten days annual leave exclusive of bank holidays. We further find that a total of 16.6 days had accrued to the applicant and that there were 6.6 days annual leave still untaken when the employment ended. The respondent has accepted that for leave untaken when the employment ended. The respondent has accepted that for leave untaken the applicant is entitled to payment in lieu. We conclude that the applicant is entitled to receive payment in lieu for the 6.6 days annual leave untaken at the time he resigned his employment. We have regard to the earnings figures given by applicant in his application form ET1, which have not been contested by the respondent. On that basis we calculate that the value of 6.6 days annual leave is £357.06 which we now order the respondent to pay to the applicant."

6. This is a Preliminary Hearing and we must decide whether there is any arguable point which would require this case to be heard at a full hearing. We are unanimously of the view that the matter raised by the Appellant in paragraph 6 of the grounds of appeal is an attempt by him to re argue the case. We see no merit in it and this Appeal is dismissed.