United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR J HAYES Messrs Bracher Rawlins 180 Fleet Street London EC4A 2HD


 


JUDGE J ALTMAN: This is an appeal by the Second Respondents from a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Ashford, Kent on 21 and 22 July and 7 August 1998. It comes before us by way of a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is an arguable point of law such as to merit and justify the appeal being heard in full by an Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The decision of the Tribunal was that there was a Transfer of an Undertaking from the First Respondents, Pall Mall Support Services Ltd, to the Second and Third Respondents, that is these Appellants and Finchams Insulations Ltd which effected the contract of employment of the Applicants before the Tribunal.

We have considered the decision of the Employment Tribunal and the arguments of Mr Hayes, Counsel on behalf of the Appellants. The appeal relates to the termination by the Second Respondents of a contract with the first Respondents for the latter to carry out cleaning services to the Second Respondents' Factory and Office Premises.

It is a case in which the labour force represented a very large, if not the exclusive element, of the work done in the premises, and of an identifiable contract between the First and Second Respondents. It is an area which has concerned the Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunals in the past, and to a large extent it requires examination of issues of fact, findings upon issues of fact and judgments upon them, which are exclusively the province of a Tribunal. However, having found those facts in the context of this case, it seems to us the interpretation of them, in order to ascertain whether there was a transfer within the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 is a mixed question of fact and law. There is a core activity of the First Respondents, namely the provision of cleaning services in accordance with contracts around the country. Were the Tribunal correct, on the facts of this case, in concluding that the termination of one such contract and the taking on by the Second Respondents of a large part of the labour force, constituted a transfer within the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations.

Accordingly, with some hesitation, it seems to us that this matter does merit full argument before the Employment Appeal Tribunal and we direct that it be so listed. This will be listed in Category B for one day. Any amendment to the Appellants' skeleton argument and skeleton argument from any other party wishing to be heard on the appeal must be filed not less than 14 days before the hearing of the appeal, together with lists of authorities to be relied on. In their argument, the parties will rely upon the findings of fact contained in the decision of the Tribunal and their reasons appended thereto and no notes of evidence are required.