Churchill v A. Yeates & Sons Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 1983 |
| Year | 1983 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
Employment - Unfair dismissal - Complaint - Time limit - Ignorance of fact fundamental to claim of unfair dismissal - Other grounds of complaint known to employee at time of dismissal - Whether “practicable” for complaint to be presented earlier -
The employee, an area manager, received a letter on December 21, 1981, stating that he had been made redundant. On March 19, 1982, he telephoned his solicitors, who had been advising him since February 4, to say that he understood that the employers had a representative calling on his old customers. A complaint of unfair dismissal was presented to the industrial tribunal on April 15 after the three months' time limit prescribed by section 67(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978F1 had expired. The first ground on which the complaint was based was that redundancy was not the real reason for the dismissal but had been used as a pretext to get rid of him. Five further grounds were given based on matters that could render a dismissal for redundancy unfair. The industrial tribunal rejected the employee's submission that it had not been reasonably practicable to bring the complaint within the time limit since all the matters complained of, except the first ground, were within his knowledge at the time of the dismissal and they held that they had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
On appeal by the employee: —
Held, allowing the appeal, that it was not reasonably practicable, within the meaning of section 67(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, for an employee to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal until he had knowledge of a fundamental fact that rendered the dismissal unfair; that where the fact was crucial to whether there was a ground for claiming unfair dismissal, it was irrelevant that the employee could have brought a claim on another separate ground; and that, since the industrial tribunal had erred in law in basing their decision solely on the five grounds that concerned matters within the employee's knowledge at the time of the dismissal, the matter would be remitted to the industrial tribunal for reconsideration (post, pp. 382H–383A.)
No cases are referred to in the judgment.
The following cases were cited in argument:
Porter v. Bandridge Ltd. [
Wall's Meat Co. Ltd. v. Khan [
Appeal from an industrial tribunal sitting at Southampton.
The employee, Albert Sydney Churchill, appealed from a decision of the industrial tribunal on June 11, 1982, that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear his claim of unfair dismissal against the employers, A. Yeates & Sons Ltd., trading as Yeates Catering Equipment, on the ground that the tribunal erred in law in finding that it was reasonably practicable, within the meaning of section 67(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, for the complaint to have been presented in time.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Nicholas Padfield for the employee.
Anthony Druce, solicitor, for the employers.
Browne-Wilkinson J. delivered the following judgment of the appeal tribunal. This is an appeal from a decision of an industrial tribunal that they had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of unfair dismissal by the employe, against his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marley (U.K.) Ltd v Anderson
...The Court of Appeal in the Machine Tool case specifically approved the previous decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Churchill v A. Yeates & Sons Ltd [1983] I C R 380. In that case, as in this, grounds of complaint that redundancy was not the real reason for dismissal (based upon t......
- Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust v Crouchman
-
Machine Tool Industry Research Association v Simpson
...tribunal should not have assumed jurisdiction under the terms of section 67 (2). Miss Downing referred to the case of Churchill v. A Yeates & Sons Limited, (1983) Industrial Cases Reports 380, as support for her submission. With respect, however, I consider that the judgment of Sir Nicolas......
- Marley (U.K.) Ltd v Anderson