United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR S BARBER (Regional Officer) UNISON 17 Highfield Road Golders Green London NW11 9PF


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Appellant, Ms Davies occupied a senior post as Business Director for Child Protection in the London Borough of Brent at the time when she went on maternity leave on 24 December 1995. She is black. Her baby was born on 11 January 1996. She was due to return from maternity leave in October 1996.

On 19 January 1996 she was informed by letter of that date that her post had been deleted in the course of a reorganisation of her department.

Before her return from maternity leave she learned that a new post, that of Assistant Director, Child Investigation Protection Team, had been created. The appointee to that post was a white male. She contends that this post is effectively her old job.

She further contends that she was not offered a comparable post to her former job and eventually, in March 1997, she was dismissed on grounds of redundancy.

On 20 November 1996 she presented a complaint of sex and race discrimination and unfair treatment on the grounds of pregnancy (case number 2201385/96). Subsequently, in March 1997 she presented a further complaint following her dismissal (case number 2201602/97). In this appeal we are concerned only with the first complaint.

By a letter dated 14 May 1997 her Trade Union representative, Mr Barber, wrote to the Respondent seeking discovery of:

(a) The job description and personal specification for the post of Assistant Director, Child Investigation Protection Team and

(b) a report to the Respondent by the NSPCC into the functioning of the Appellant's department prepared in about early 1996. He also requested a list of appointments within the Social Services Business Units of the Respondent by reference to such appointees' race and gender, for the period 1 March to 14 October 1996.

That information was not supplied voluntarily. Accordingly orders were sought from the Industrial Tribunal on 2 June, 26 June and 29 August 1997. Finally, by letter dated 20 October, the Regional Chairman at London (North) refused to make the orders sought, but made orders in respect of information already supplied to the Appellant's advisers.

Against that refusal the Appellant now appeals. The matter comes before us today on a preliminary hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the appeal raises any arguable point of law fit to go to a full hearing and, if so, for us to give consequential directions for the further conduct of this appeal.

We have heard submissions from Mr Barber on the basis of well known authorities. He submits that this is a case in which the Regional Chairman has failed to take into account the guidance to be found in those authorities, in reaching a conclusion in this case, without holding an oral interlocutory hearing.

We are satisfied that the appeal is arguable and should proceed to a full hearing.

We give the following directions. The Respondent should forward to the Employment Appeal Tribunal copies of any letters written to the Industrial Tribunal commenting on the original application for orders contained in the Union's letters of 2 and 26 June 1997. In addition, the Respondent should have available at the full appeal hearing, copies of the NSPCC report and the Assistant Director's job description and personal specification, referred to earlier in this judgment, in case it is thought necessary for this Tribunal to look at those documents de bene esse.

The appeal will be listed for half a day; Category C; skeleton arguments are to be exchanged between the parties and lodged at this Tribunal not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing.