United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR E FRIPP (Employment Law Advice Scheme)


 


MR JUSTICE BELL: This is a preliminary ex parte hearing in respect of an appeal by Ms Sim against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on 3rd December 1997. The tribunal consisted of a Chairman sitting alone, who heard the matter in the presence of a representative of the respondent company, who it appears gave some evidence, but in the absence of Ms Sim who in her Notice of Appeal tells us she was unable to attend because of work commitments.

We will not go any further into the facts, because in our view, having read the papers and heard Mr Fripp, to whom we are grateful for his representations on Ms Sim's behalf today, we think that it is arguable firstly, that paragraph 2 of the tribunal's decision did not correctly set out Ms Sim's claim, which may have been part of the reason for the second, third and fourth matters which are these: secondly, the Industrial Tribunal took account of s.86(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which was not in fact relevant because her claim was not for unlawful dismissal under that Act nor could it be; thirdly, the tribunal appears to have taken no account of the terms of Ms Sim's contract of employment, particularly clause 7, which said:

"You will work for a trial period of one month, during which time one week's notice in writing on either side will be required to terminate your employment."

Fourthly, the tribunal made no finding as to whether Ms Sim had actually been dismissed or, if she had been dismissed, when the effective date of termination was. In our view, all those matters are properly arguable upon a full hearing of this appeal.

Mr Fripp today adds a further point that it does appear, he submits, even taking into account the tribunal's findings of fact, that Ms Sim was not properly paid for one day, 18th July 1997, for which she should have been paid. Mr Fripp has taken a further point that a letter dated 25th July 1997, makes it look, or so he contends, as if Ms Sim was under a period of suspension rather than being dismissed at the material time. Whether or not those matters would be matters for the Appeal Tribunal, or matters for a new Industrial Tribunal should this appeal succeed and the matter remitted for rehearing, we consider that the matter should go ahead to a full hearing.

We do not restrict the grounds of appeal upon which it proceeds. We do invite Ms Sim or any representative of hers to consider the points we have outlined today, and if so advised, further amend the Notice of Appeal to take account of them. We give leave to further amend the Notice of Appeal within 21 days.

It seems to us, Mr Fripp, that we should allow ½ day, Category C, and skeletons to be served and filed not less than 28 days before the ultimate hearing date.