United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	M D BASU (of Counsel) Messrs Harkavys Solicitors 1 - 4 Vigo Street London W1X 1AH


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The issue in this appeal is, what was the effective date of termination of a contract of employment, the EDT.

The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a teacher. Serious allegations of misconduct were made against him by certain pupils. He was suspended and a disciplinary meeting of the Staffing Committee, consisting of School Governors, took place on 14 February 1996. Following that meeting the Appellant received a letter dated 17 February enclosing the decision of the Staff Committee. It began:

"Disciplinary Hearing Greenford GM High School

Decision of the Staffing Committee

The first paragraph stated:

"Following two long sessions hearing evidence and a further long period of deliberation the staffing committee has reached the unanimous decision that Mr Drage be dismissed from his employment at the school."

In the penultimate paragraph it is said:

"The staffing committee, by a majority decision, is of the view that the sum total of its findings is that Mr Drage is guilty of gross misconduct and should therefore be dismissed summarily from his post."

The Appellant then took advice from Solicitors and appealed internally. Pending the appeal he continued to receive his salary. The appeal process was concluded on 13 March 1996. The appeal was dismissed. The decision of the appeal panel concluded:

"The Appeals Panel after careful investigation and consideration of all the information placed before it has therefore formed the belief that Mr Drage's conduct was such that he should be dismissed from the school with immediate effect."

Thereafter he received a form P45 giving the date of termination as 13 March 1996. He commenced Industrial Tribunal proceedings by presenting an Originating Application on 11 June 1996.

Both parties proceeded on the basis that the EDT was 13 March 1996 and that appeared in both parties' pleadings. However, when the matter came before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (North) on 2 October 1997 Counsel for the Respondent took, for the first time, the point that the Originating Application was presented out of time. Since this was a point going to the Tribunal's jurisdiction it was considered as a preliminary issue.

The Tribunal, in a decision with full reasons dated 24 October 1997, held that the Staffing Committee decision was one of summary dismissal with immediate effect. The contractual disciplinary procedure, the Tribunal held, made no provision for suspending the dismissal pending the outcome of the appeal. Having been referred to the relevant authorities the Tribunal concluded that the EDT was 17 February 1996; that the complaint was made outside the primary limitation period; that it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint within time and that accordingly, it should be dismissed.

Now there is an appeal. Mr Basu has referred us to the Articles and Instruments of Government of the School and he submits that, on a proper construction, it is clear that the Staff Committee had no authority to dismiss and that dismissal did not take effect until the appeal was dismissed on 13 March 1996.

We are told that the relevant Articles were in a large bundle that was put before the Industrial Tribunal, although it may be, since this point arose on the morning of the hearing that the same focus was not put on this aspect that it is now in this appeal.

It seems to us that this is a point which ought to go to a full appeal hearing and accordingly, we shall give leave for the matter to proceed.

The case will be listed Category C for three-quarters of a day, to be listed "not before 11.30 am". We make no order at this stage for Chairman's Notes of Evidence. Liberty to the parties to apply in that respect. Skeleton arguments should be exchanged not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing, copies to be lodged with the EAT in the usual way.