Griffiths and others v Perco Engineering Services: EAT 14 Mar 2006

EAT Unfair Dismissal: Automatically Unfair Reasons; Working Time Regulations: Holiday Pay and Health and Safety
The five Appellants appealed against the Tribunal’s decision that none of them had been automatically unfairly dismissed for health and safety reasons and three of them had not been dismissed at all but had resigned on protest at the dismissal of the other two – which dismissal the Tribunal found to be for refusing to attend their work site at the contractual time. One Appellant appealed against the rejection of his holiday pay claim.
(i) an amendment to the Notice of Appeal to allow reliance on s100(i)(c) for the first time at EAT level would not be permitted; s100(i)(c) raised a new case with new factual issues.
(ii) The Tribunal’s findings were not perverse or otherwise based on error of law.
(iii) The holiday pay claim failed because a sufficient payment had been made; that payment could not have been a payment in lieu of notice because the employee had not been dismissed but resigned; the payment was referable to holiday pay.


Burke QC HHJ


[2006] UKEAT 0424 – 05 – 1403




England and Wales


Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240252