United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR WILSON (of Counsel) ELAAS


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: Mr Lehva appeals against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) on 6th and 7th November 1997 and 2nd June 1998. The decision of the Employment Tribunal was that his dismissal by the respondent was not unfair. There was a secondary holding that in these words:

"(ii) there was a wrongful deduction from the Applicant's wages which the parties agreed to resolve between themselves, accordingly there will be no further proceedings under this head of claim."

The decision was sent to the parties on 10th August 1998. There was an appeal from the decision by Mr Lehva by Notice of Appeal dated 15th September 1998. Because an issue of bias was raised in the Notice of Appeal he was asked under the Rules to swear an affidavit, which he did. The affidavit was sworn on 25th November 1998. The Chairman's comments were received by this tribunal on 7th December 1998.

We have had the advantage of Mr Wilson appearing for Mr Lehva on the Employment Law Appeal Advisory Scheme at today's hearing. We are very grateful indeed for Mr Wilson's assistance in this case.

There are two grounds of appeal. The first of which is, essentially, that Mr Lehva did not have a fair hearing and that there was bias and therefore the result is perverse. The second is on a shorter point on the deduction from wages, which it was said the parties had agreed to settle.

So far as the first is concerned, we have listened carefully to all that Mr Wilson has said, but we remain unconvinced that Mr Lehva is seeking more than a second bite of the cherry. Mr Wilson has submitted that a tribunal has a duty not only to conduct proceedings fairly but to ensure that a party in person has a proper opportunity to present to his case. Mr Wilson has submitted that Lehva was denied that opportunity on that occasion.

We have carefully read the findings of the tribunal and the contents of Mr Lehva's affidavit together with the comments of the Chairman, and we have come to the conclusion that the decision which was reached by the tribunal on the merits of the case, was one which the tribunal could have properly have reached. Mr Wilson's submission that a observer would have said that the applicant did not have a full opportunity to put his case, is not one which we find tenable from the decision and the Chairman's comments on Mr Lehva's affidavit. In those circumstances, we do not feel that it would be appropriate to let this ground to go forward to a full hearing.

However, on the other point which was raised, it seems to us that it was wrong for a tribunal not to adjourn the wrongful deduction claim in case the parties agreement to agree did not succeed. We understand that the agreement to agree with no further resolve, led to Mr Lehva getting less than he actually claimed and the sum was paid at a much later date than that which he might have obtained if there had been a further hearing and the matter resolved by the tribunal.

In the circumstances, what we propose to do is to allow the appeal to go to full hearing on the second point only. It may be, because we understand there is not very much money involved, that the parties will really reach an agreement as to compensation before this matter reaches a full hearing, but that is not a matter for us to determine. We should say that Mr Lehva had indicated that that part of his appeal was to be withdrawn because there had been a settlement, but in the light of the address we have had from Mr Wilson, that withdrawal has not been placed on the record and we think it appropriate to let the appeal to go ahead on that point only.

We would thank Mr Wilson for his assistance this morning.