Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> London Borough Of Haringey v GMB & Office Cleaning Services Ltd [1997] UKEAT 627_97_1610 (16 October 1997)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/627_97_1610.html
Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 627_97_1610
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MRS J M MATTHIAS
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY APPELLANT
GMB & OFFICE CLEANING SERVICES LTD RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellants | MR P NICHOLLS (of Counsel) The Solicitor London Borough of Haringey Alexandra House 10 Station Road Wood Green London N22 4TR |
JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in relation to an appeal from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (North). Their decision was promulgated on 4 April 1997. By their decision it was held that there had been a failure by the First Respondents, the London Borough of Haringey, to consult the Union, GBM, in respect of a relevant transfer and therefore, there was a breach of Regulation 10(5) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
Quite shortly the facts can be stated. The Appellants had formerly carried out cleaning services for the College of North East London. In due course that college achieved its independence and, as a result of that, the responsibility to obtain cleaning services for itself was transferred to the institution.. It put the matter out for tender and, as a result, they employed an agency called the Essex Client Services Agency to deal with the tendering process.
In due course a tender was submitted by the Second Respondents which in time was accepted on behalf of the college. It is said the Appellants, the transferor, failed to consult with the union which represented the employees engaged in the transfer and, as a result, they incurred liability.
The Appellants have argued that before it can be found that the Appellants were in breach of the 1981 regulations, the Tribunal had to find that there was a measure in relation to the transfer introduced by the transferor. If there was such a measure then there would be an obligation to consult with the Union, not otherwise. In this particular case the Industrial Tribunal, throughout their reasons, never suggest there was any such measure introduced by the Appellants and indeed, having regard to the facts of the case as we know them to be, it is difficult to see that there was any situation or circumstance from which one might infer that a measure had been introduced in relation to the transfer.
In all the circumstances, we accept the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant that there is an arguable case to go before the Tribunal for a full hearing and we so direct.