United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR CHRONIAS (Legal Adviser) Nicholas Chronias Legal Adviser EEF Broadway House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NQ
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY: This is the matter that comes to us by way of an emergency application but it does seem to us that it is a case where we should intervene.

The Respondent's representatives, namely the EEF, West Midlands, by a letter dated 13 November, made representations as to a Witness Order addressed to a Mr McDonald and a Mr Howe. That Witness Order was dated 12 November, requiring parties to attend in Cardiff on Friday 15 November.

The note to the Witness Order says this:

"This Order is issued pursuant to Rule 4(2) of the Industrial Tribunals Constitution and Rules of Procedure 1993. The tribunal has power to vary or set aside this Order on the application of the person to whom it is directed, but can only do so for good cause. No such application can be entertained unless made before the date of the hearing specified above."

So in due course, as I have indicated, an application was made it seems from the note by fax on the 13th.

By a letter dated 14 November the Tribunal replied in these terms:

"Thank you for your letters dated 13 November 1996 which have been placed before a chairman. I am directed to reply as follows:-

The issue of witness orders is a matter for the party applying for the order and the chairman. Other parties are not in a position to comment or object."

We find that letter somewhat troubling and if we may say so we think the informed member of the public might do so. If a person is required to attend as a witness and told the Tribunal has power to vary or set aside that order on the application of the person to whom it is directed it must seem somewhat odd to receive a letter in the terms of the Tribunal's letter of 14 November.

We therefore allow the appeal against the refusal of the Tribunal to consider the representations made by those subject to a Witness Order. We make that decision because we consider the Tribunal has denied those, subject to that order, their right to make representations as required by Rule 4(5) and indeed, as set out in the Notice of the Witness Order itself.