Martin v Sunley World Of Golf (Bridlington) Ltd (t/a Playgolf Bridlington Links), Court of Appeal - United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, November 30, 1998,  UKEAT 1254_98_3011
|Issuing Organization:||United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal|
|Actores:||Martin v Sunley World Of Golf (Bridlington) Ltd (t/a Playgolf Bridlington Links)|
|Resolution Date:||November 30, 1998|
Copyright 1998Appeal No. EAT/1254/98 EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 30 November 1998 BeforeHIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMANMRS R A VICKERSMR N D WILLIS MISS S L MARTIN APPELLANT SUNLEY WORLD OF GOLF (BRIDLINGTON) LTDt/a PLAYGOLF BRIDLINGTON LINKS RESPONDENTS Transcript of Proceedings JUDGMENT PRELIMINARY HEARING Revised EAT/1254/98 APPEARANCES EAT/1254/98- 5 - JUDGE J. ALTMAN: This is a preliminary hearing in relation to an appeal brought by the Applicant, Miss Martin, from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Hull on 15 July 1998. The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is a reasonably arguable point of law so as to give the Employment Appeal Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain and determine it at a full hearing. Though the dates of employment are not clear from the decision of the Tribunal, it appears that the Applicant began her employment on 22 May 1995 and terminated it sometime in January 1998 according to the Tribunal, or on 9 February 1998 according to the Respondents in their Notice of Appearance or the 23 February 1998 according to the Applicant in her Originating Application. The Applicant made a number of applications following upon her dismissal, but this appeal relates to only one. In her Originating Application the Applicant claimed for unpaid overtime for 10 hours a week, apparently throughout her employment. It is common ground that the Applicant's Contract of Employment provided for a basic salary and the Respondents allege that the Contract provided also for a minimum number of hours of work per week, unrelated to the amount of salary. This seems to be accepted, for the Applicant's case was that whilst she could be expected to work a reasonable number of extra hours without pay, what happened in her case was that her number of hours was so excessive as to give rise to an argument that there was an entitlement to be paid on a quantum merit basis and that it was unconscionable that the working of such excessive overtime would be on a voluntary basis. The Applicant complains that the Industrial Tribunal did not address its mind to this issue. In the Notice of Appeal it is stated that the evidence showed that the Appellant: ``required to work excessively long working hours at no extra pay. It is claimed that the Tribunal was wrong in law in failing to infer from this evidence that the quantity and frequency of the excess hours were such as to compel the existence of a contract...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL