Appeal No.	 EAT/327/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 26 June 2000

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
MR K M YOUNG CBE

MR P D BURDER	APPELLANT

PROVEND SERVICES LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED	

	MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:	This appeal is before us today listed as a preliminary hearing. The information that we have received from the court staff is that the appellant, Mr Burder, attended the Employment Appeal Tribunal this morning and saw a member of the ELAAS team. However, having spoken to that person, he then left the building and has not returned. In those circumstances we propose to deal with his appeal on paper.

1.	The appellant was employed by the respondent. His job was to refill vending machines with fizzy drinks. He was dismissed by reason of redundancy with effect from 12th February 1999. 

2.	Before the Employment Tribunal he claimed that there was not a redundancy situation; that he had been unfairly selected and that he had not been consulted. 

3.	The finding of the Employment Tribunal on the 14th October 1999 was that the appellant had been unfairly dismissed because of a lack of consultation. However, the Employment Tribunal expressed the view that consultation in the circumstances of the case would have made no difference to the final result, save that the appellant would in all probability have been employed for a further two weeks. The Employment Tribunal then invited the parties to see if they could reach agreement as to compensation for the unfair dismissal, the unfairness being limited to that lack of consultation. At the Employment Tribunal an agreement was reached.

4.	The appellant now appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. His grounds of appeal assert that the Employment Tribunal did not apply current case law, gave no reasons for reaching its decision and reached a decision that was perverse.

5.	The findings of fact in the Employment Tribunal go into some detail. The reality of the industrial circumstances was that the respondent company had lost a major contract with Tesco as a result of which their requirement for people doing the job which the appellant had been doing was reduced. In reality there were three people doing a job for which, at the material time, the respondent company now needed only one. 

6.	There are before us appraisal forms prepared by the area manager and these were in evidence before the Employment Tribunal. It is clear from those appraisal forms headed “Redundancy Selection”, that of the three candidates, one received a substantially better appraisal than the other two. In those circumstances, he was the one who kept the job, the other two being made redundant.

7.	It seems to us to be clear beyond doubt that, having regard to the appraisal that took place, that was the inevitable outcome of the selection procedure. We are satisfied that it was an appropriate and reasonable selection procedure in the circumstances of this case and of this particular employer. We do not consider that the selection process was afflicted by any unfairness. Indeed, we take the view that the conclusions reached by the Employment Tribunal, both as to the unfairness of the lack of consultation but the appropriateness of the actual selection that was made, are completely beyond challenge. In our judgment no arguable point of law arises on this appeal and accordingly, it will be dismissed.