United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MS S MOOR (ELAAS)


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there are arguable points of law in appeals which Appellants wish to make against interlocutory decisions of Industrial Tribunal Chairmen.

The matter stems from the engagement of a number of people by the charity, MIND. There is an association called Newcastle MIND, which appears to be an unincorporated association but with charitable purposes. It is therefore, as we understand it, a charity within the definition of 'a charity' within the Charities Act 1993.

The Appellant Applicants are people who had been engaged by the charity to further the interests of the charity and who lost their positions with the charity in circumstances which, they say, give rise to complaints of unfair dismissal and, in the case of two of them, complaints of unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex.

The circumstances giving rise to the potential liability occurred in 1995 and we are at this stage looking at decisions of Industrial Tribunals given in February and March 1998 which are of an interlocutory nature to determine who should be the named Respondents, bearing in mind that one is dealing with an unincorporated charitable association. It is obviously regrettable that this preliminary issue is still extant however, having regard to the decisions of the Chairmen concerned, it does seem to us desirable that the Employment Appeal Tribunal now sorts the matter out once and for all so that the cases may progress thereafter in a proper format and with due dispatch.

For the purposes of this short judgment it is sufficient if I identify the two general issues. First, who are the correct persons to represent the charitable unincorporated association, Newcastle MIND, in the proceedings which are being brought? Second, if the Applicants were to succeed in their complaints to what extent, if any, would the a) members of the executive committee, b) the trustees and/or c) all the members of Newcastle MIND be liable to the Applicants?

It seems to us that this second issue may be relevant to the question as to who should be the named Representatives because it seems to us possible that, at the end of the day, the Employment Appeal Tribunal will conclude that those who are exposed to liability (if any) should have the opportunity to represent the organisation.

The case demonstrates that there are a large number of people who are potentially interested in the outcome of this appeal. It seems to us not appropriate that we should at this time exercise our powers to join additional persons as parties to this appeal and we have not been invited to do so. I have in mind rule 18 of the EAT Rules 1993. But that said, it seems to me desirable that the existence of the appeal proceedings should be communicated to the charity MIND itself so that if they wish to make representations to us they can make an application to be joined as a party, which will be then be considered.

The Applicants have also been in touch with the Charity Commissioners who have obviously taken a neutral stance, quite correctly. Again, we think a notice of these proceedings should be given to the Charity Commissioners to enable them, if they feel they would wish to, to make representations during the course of the appeal in which case, for that purpose, we would consider their application to be joined as a party.

Furthermore, there are others who, if the appeal were to be successful, are potential named representatives of the charity Newcastle MIND. This morning I have been given 13 names and the arrangement that I have arrived at with Miss Moor (to whom we are extremely grateful) who has appeared under the ELAAS scheme, is that she, on behalf of the Applicants, as we understand it, will let us know the names and addresses of those individuals so that they can be informed of the proceedings and invited to appear if they so wish. In their case they are more directly interested and if they would wish to be joined as a party for the purposes of the appeal hearing only then such application would no doubt be favourably considered as they have a direct interest in the outcome of the appeal.

Nothing that I have said in this judgment is to be taken as an expression of any concluded view about any of the issues which arise on the appeal. It is clear that the appeal itself will take more than one day. For this purpose I say that it should be listed for two days, that it should be given category A rating, in other words, it is a case which must be heard by a High Court Judge sitting here. I have indicated to the parties that it is most unlikely that we can accommodate this case much before the end of the year.

On that basis the appeal will be allowed to go forward for a full hearing in the confident expectation that the Employment Appeal Tribunal will be able to resolve once and for all the difficult question as to who the Respondents should be and by whom they should be represented.