United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 593_93_0111

Appeal No. EAT/593/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 1 November 1993

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J BULL QC

MR T S BATHO

MR A FERRY MBE

---

MR G CARTER          APPELLANT

BALFOUR BEATTY LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON

For the Respondents MR D W CORCORAN

Personnel Manager

Balfour Beatty Ltd

Raynesway

Derby

DE21 7BG


 


JUDGE BULL QC: This is an appeal by Mr Carter against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Nottingham on 4 February 1993. That Tribunal found that the Appellant was unfairly dismissed but awarded no compensation to him. The facts can be set out in a very small compass.

The Respondents are a well-known, very large construction company. The Applicant was employed by them as a light plant fitter at Derby. Work declined. Redundancies were made after appraisal and the Appellant was amongst those selected to be made redundant.

The Industrial Tribunal found that there was a failure in consultation with him but they went on by paragraph 8 of their Decision, to say this:

"We are satisfied that had there been consultation, there would have been absolutely no chance of the applicant retaining employment because of the way the respondents had dealt with the criteria and the appraisal for selection."

There is a highly unusual feature of this case in that criticism is levelled at the way in which the hearing was conducted by the Chairman. Both sides were very clear to us in asserting that they were each prevented by his conduct from putting their cases as fully as they wished or in the way in which they wished before the Industrial Tribunal. This may or may not be correct for the Chairman has declined to comment upon the Notice of Appeal. However, in the highly unusual circumstances of this case where both sides are united in their view that there were breaches of the rules of natural justice in that they assert justice was not seen to be done towards either party, we do allow this appeal and direct that this matter be remitted to be heard by a different tribunal.