United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR W M REES (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Ms A Hewitt (Solicitor) Wandsworth & Merton Law Centre 248 Lavender Hill London SW11 1LJ
For the Respondents	MS S LITCHFIELD (Legal Adviser) The Solicitor Dept of Trade & Industry 10-18 Victoria Street London SW1H ONH


 


JUDGE BYRT QC: This is an appeal from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal Chairman, sitting alone, at London (South). The decision was promulgated on 26 June 1996 and, in consequence, all the proceedings therefore were covered by the Employment Protection Consolidation Act 1978. By that decision the Chairman held that Mr Hill, the Applicant, was not entitled to a redundancy payment. It is from that decision that Mr Hill appeals.

When we look at his original IT1, it is plain that he was appealing against the decision of the Secretary of State's decision relating to two matters, namely his decision not to make him a redundancy payment and not to pay him monies in lieu of notice and holiday pay. So far as the claim relating to redundancy payment is concerned, that would be covered by Section 106 of the Act and if the issue of liability was to be determined, it would be a matter arising under Section 108. So far as the other payments are concerned, they would be payments which would be covered by Section 122 and if the matter were to go to a Tribunal, by Section 124.

We have spent some time considering the circumstances in which a Chairman of a Tribunal might sit alone. We considered Section 128 of the Act and specifically sub-sections 2(C) and 2(F). With regard to claims under Section 124, the Chairman does have the power to sit alone after he/she has taken into consideration those matters set out in sub-section 2 (F). However Section 124 does not include claims for redundancy. They are covered by Section 106 and references are made to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 108. Claims under those sections are not listed anywhere in sub-paragraph 2(C) of Section 128.

Accordingly, it is our view that the Chairman sitting on her own, did not have jurisdiction under any circumstances, save with the parties' consent, to hear claims for redundancy payments. The Appellant, in his IT1 expressly withheld his consent. That being so, without making any further comments on the merits of her decision, we feel that we have no alternative but to set aside this decision on the ground that the Chairman had no jurisdiction to determine the redundancy matter and remit the case to the Tribunal to be heard by a full Tribunal. That is the order that we make.