United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR THOMAS KIBLING (of Counsel) Messrs Leo Abse & Cohen Solicitors 40 Churchill Way Cardiff CF1 4SS


 


MR JUSTICE BELL: This appeal should be allowed to proceed to a full hearing on all the grounds of appeal which Mr Kibling has included in his Notice of Appeal and wishes to include in the amended Notice of Appeal which we grant leave to be filed. It may help the eventual hearing if we say that what we understand to be the primary point and the one which has most moved us this morning, is that there was apparently evidence from which it could have been inferred that Mr Newman was less favourably treated than white members of the staff, and perhaps members of his very own shift, in respect of action taken, or lack of action taken for leaving early without management authority, which covers the first two specific incidents of which he complains on 8th November and 11th November 1996. We have also been told that there was evidence from which the Industrial Tribunal could have inferred, had it chosen, that Mr Newman was less favourably treated in respect of the issue relating to holidays or holiday times. Yet it is arguable, at the very least, that the Industrial Tribunal did not address itself to the question of whether he had been less favourably treated in fact in respect of those matters. It is apparent that he was less favourably treated than Miss Howells, who is white, and it is in our view arguable that in considering the situation with regard to the choice of Miss Howells as the person to act up, rather than the choice of Mr Newman, the tribunal asked itself the wrong question when asking whether the choice was perverse or whether there was any malice in the opinions offered before that choice was made.

The other distinct issue which was put forward as the basis for racial discrimination was the way in which Mr Newman's complaint was dealt with, and we will say no more than that we consider the appeal is arguable in relation to that.

It occurs to us that it may help the panel of the Appeal Tribunal which deals with this matter in due course to know just how Mr Newman's case of less favourable treatment in relation to the various incidents was advanced in evidence at the hearing. We would like on the other hand to avoid calling for the Chairman's Notes of Evidence in relation to those matters if we can, so the direction which we make is that within 56 days an agreed statement of the effect of the parts of the evidence relevant to that matter, less favourable treatment, be agreed between the representatives of the parties and be filed with the Court. We put over for further application the question of whether the Chairman's Notes of Evidence are required if such an agreed statement cannot be agreed. We are optimistic that there will no trouble in agreeing sufficient material for the making of a useful agreed statement of the relevant matters. We will say that the leave to amend the Notice of Appeal is to file an amended Notice of Appeal within seven days. We agree with Mr Kibling's assessment that this case can be appropriately listed for ½ day in Category C.