United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR A KOVA (ELAAS)


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the draft amended Notice of Appeal contains any arguable point of law fit for hearing before a full body of the E.A.T.

The appeal relates to a decision given by an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Southampton, in which they concluded that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed. They awarded him the sum of £8,725 in compensation, the recoupment regulations not applying. The Applicant had been employed by the Respondents as a Manager, for a period of time which was determined by them, having regard to the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations.

He was allegedly dismissed by reason of mis-management. The Tribunal first of all had to ask itself what was the reason for the dismissal. They concluded that the employers had not satisfied them as to what the reason was, but went on to say that even if the reason was conduct, they were satisfied that the dismissal was unfair, having applied the correct test in Section 57(3) of the Act. Having reached their conclusions and having examined the whole of the evidence, they then determined the question of compensation, and, as I have indicated, arrived at a figure of £8,725.

This matter has been before this Court before. On that occasion allegations were made as to the mis-management of the case by the Industrial Tribunal Chairman, such as to render the proceedings unfair, so far as the employers were concerned. That allegation was put to the Industrial Tribunal Chairman who denied the allegations that were being made against him and observed that this was not the first occasion on which this particular Respondent had lost a case and then turned round and complained of misconduct by the Industrial Tribunal.

We have been told today that the employer is not in a position to make any payment and that therefore Mr Wisely, the successful Applicant, is without his money. We are concerned to make sure that our procedures are not used so as to delay the moment at which payment has to be made. Having said that, in this case we think that there are two arguments only which are fit for hearing before a full Tribunal; that is, firstly, whether the Tribunal have properly considered whether the loss could extend beyond the date when the business closed down in June 1995 and secondly, whether the Industrial Tribunal have properly considered the question of the loss of statutory employment rights.

Both those matters are arguable in our view, having regard to paragraphs 16 and 17 of the original Notice of Appeal under the heading "Grounds". We are satisfied that there is no arguable point in relation to the way that the Industrial Tribunal approached the question of compensation. There is no arguable point that they have failed to consider the application of a Polkey reduction. Nor is there any merit in the suggestion that they have not had in mind the possibility of a deduction under Section 74(6) of the 1978 Act by reason of the employee's own conduct. Accordingly and on the very limited basis that I have indicated, it seems to us that there needs to be a full hearing of the appeal.

I propose to make a direction for the hearing of it and I intend that it should be heard within the next fourteen days, at 10.00 a.m. before me and whoever I am sitting with on that particular occasion. I estimate the time for this as being one hour and no longer. I would be prepared to try and arrange that hearing so as to be convenient to both parties, but I am afraid that I regard it as important that this case should be heard quickly because of the matters to which I have referred, rather than being dragged out. (I can deal with the date now if both of you are in a position to deal with it, otherwise you will have to go round to Listing, but it will take place in the next fortnight at 10.00 a.m. in front of me, at the beginning of my list for that day.)