United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR G CHAPLIN (Representative)
For the Respondents	THE RESPONDENTS NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE HICKS QC: The only formal order which we propose to make is that this appeal be adjourned. That arises because the parties received very short notice of this appointment, as Mr Chaplin for the appellant, who has managed to come, agrees. He does not therefore oppose the application of the respondents made by letter that since they cannot attend there be an adjournment. We therefore order the adjournment. But although that is the only formal order we make or need to make the procedural complications are such that it seems to us that it would helpful if I were to explain as briefly as I can the stage that has been reached and our suggestions - they can be no more - as to what should now be done.

The appellant, Mr Slocombe, was employed by the respondents, Entrelec (UK) Ltd, from August 1984 in various capacities and finally as a product manager. There was a restructuring in prospect, and we need not go into the details, but the end result of such consultation as took place was that he was interviewed for but not offered a post in the restructured organisation and at the close of that interview was handed a letter of dismissal on the ground, as the tribunal found, of redundancy. The tribunal went on to find that the dismissal was unfair. There are no appeals either way down to that point of the tribunal's findings and decision.

However the tribunal went on to find, in a decision promulgated on 4th August 1996, that there was a 60% chance that with a fair redundancy procedure Mr Slocombe would have obtained alternative employment. They therefore awarded two weeks' full compensation on the basis that proper consultation would have extended his employment for that period, and 40% thereafter on the basis of their finding of 60% chance of alternative employment. I need not go into any further complications. That broadly was their decision and it is to be found in paragraph 15 of their reasons of 4th October 1996.

There was an appeal by Mr Slocombe against what I may call the paragraph 15 decision. That was dealt with by another panel of this Employment Appeal Tribunal by order of 1st July 1997, which adjourned the appeal sine die. The tribunal making that order indicated, as we understand it - although it is not part of that formal order - that the Industrial Tribunal should both proceed with the remedy hearing and also a review of its original decision. On 29th April 1998 the Industrial Tribunal promulgated both its remedy decision and a review decision. The effect of the review decision, for present purposes, was that paragraph 15 dropped out of the original decision of 29th October 1996. But the effect of paragraph 3 of the extended reasons for the remedy decision was that precisely the same finding of 60% chance was reinstated on the basis, as we understand from Mr Chaplin, not of any additional evidence but of the evidence which the tribunal had already heard at the first hearing.

It seems to us likely therefore, but it would be unwise for us to make a formal decision, that the original appeal, which is the appeal technically before us, must fail on the basis that paragraph 15 of the original decision is simply no longer current.

What has then further complicated the situation is that the Industrial Tribunal by reason of a recent decision of this Employment Appeal Tribunal in another case, wishes of its own motion to review its remedy award in a different respect. The nature of that does not matter for present purposes. Meanwhile it has stayed that review pending the hearing of this appeal. So at the moment nothing is happening. This appeal is not proceeding because (a) we are adjourning it and (b) we, and we think Mr Chaplin, strongly suspect that it cannot in any case proceed in its present form. The Industrial Tribunal's review on this separate compensation point is not proceeding because it is stayed. As I have said, we therefore think it might be useful for us to make suggestions as to how matters can get going again.

The first point we wish to make is that, although it is not for us to give directions, we strongly suggest that the Industrial Tribunal's review of the fresh aspect of its compensation award should proceed - not least because if there is to be an appeal on either side against that review it would be convenient that it come on together with whatever appeal there is against the point that originally appeared in paragraph 15 of the first decision and now appears in paragraph 3 of the remedy decision. So that is our first suggestion.

Our second suggestion is that the appellant, Mr Slocombe, and the respondents, Entrelec (UK) Ltd, both consider whether they wish to obtain leave to appeal out of time against paragraph 3 of the remedy decision because that, as far as we can see, is the only way in which it is likely that the point of substance, about which they both seem to be dissatisfied, of the percentage finding, can be dealt with. It is of course entirely for them what they do about it. As we understand it, Mr Slocombe will wish to make an application for leave to appeal anyway, but if the respondents not only do not object to that but also wish to cross-appeal it may be that an application for leave to appeal out of time to the Registrar could be dealt with much more quickly and cheaply than if there is any dispute about the matter. So we simply leave that to the parties but with the suggestion that consultation between them might be very helpful.

One of our reasons for dealing with this by way of formal judgment, although these points go only to suggestion, is that the formal judgment will in the ordinary course go to the respondent as well as to Mr Slocombe and there will be a copy to the Industrial Tribunal Chairman, so that everybody will understand not only what we have done but, much more importantly, the reasons for doing it and our suggestions as to what should now ensue.