Appeal No.	 EAT/428/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 June 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KIRKWOOD
MRS E HART
MR J C SHRIGLEY

MR E E L'ESTRANGE	APPELLANT

LONDON & COUNTRY LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY
OR REPRESENTATION
ON BEHALF OF 
THE APPELLANT	

	MR JUSTICE KIRKWOOD:     This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by an employee from the decision of a Chairman of Industrial Tribunals sitting alone at London (South) on 19 December 1997, dismissing the employee’s claim which was to do with a non-payment of wages.

	The employee, the Appellant before us, is Mr L’Estrange.  On 7 May 1997 Mr L’Estrange began employment as a trainee driver operator for the Respondent company, London & Country Ltd, which is a bus company.  

	There was a detailed contract of employment and Mr L’Estrange also signed a training covenant undertaken by trainee drivers.  Under that the employer was entitled to claim or to deduct from salary up to £2,000, should the employee leave within a specified period of time.  As to that contract and covenant, the Chairman found that it was not in the nature of a penalty and that there were, undoubtedly, substantial expenses and costs involved in the training of new and unqualified drivers.  The Chairman found and I quote:

“My overall conclusion therefore is that Mr L’Estrange is bound by the terms of the contract.  The Respondents are therefore entitled to deduct the training costs which apply under the contract, and his particular claim is therefore dismissed.”

	That all arose because Mr L’Estrange’s contract, which began on 7 May, was terminated as soon as 25 July 1997.  His final month’s wages would have come to £589 and some pence, but against that the employer set off, in extinguishment of that, part of the sum of £2,000.  The Chairman found that it was entitled to do, so the claim failed and Mr L’Estrange seeks to appeal.

	Mr L’Estrange said in his Notice of Appeal that he was uncertain whether he was eligible for legal aid.  He said:

“... I have also applied for forms to complain to the European Commission against this injustice.  Furthermore concerning the Decision, only 1 person heard this case.  Therefore a unanimous decision is impossible.  It is unilateral, and I believe an injustice will be the result if the decision stands.  I wish the appeal to be lodged and further time to be allowed before final hearing.”

	Mr L’Estrange sent a letter covering that, in which he explains the circumstances in which his employment came to an end.  He says:

“The decision of the Tribunal is unacceptable.  No attempt to check basic points of law were entered into.  I believe that the Wages Act has been breached, however because I am employed it means I am unable to financially employ legal help. ...”

	He thinks the whole thing is completely unsatisfactory and, to summarise what he says, he thinks he is being “railroaded” and deceived, if not cheated, by the employer.

	All three of us, sitting on this preliminary hearing, have separately, and individually, considered this case, to try to see whether there is an arguable point upon which Mr L’Estrange can take the matter forward to a full hearing.  The fact of the matter is that the Chairman sitting alone, as he was entitled to, found in the terms of the covenant that it was a perfectly proper covenant in relation to training expenses.  He found that the employer was entitled to make the deduction it did make and Mr L’Estrange, however unhappy he may feel about it, has failed to demonstrate to us that there is any point of law upon which it may be argued that the Chairman was wrong.

	Accordingly, we are unanimously of the conclusion that this appeal has no prospect of success, so it our duty to dismiss it at this stage.