United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR S WILSON (of Counsel) ELAAS


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: This is the preliminary hearing, ex parte, of an appeal by Ms Graham against the decision given by an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North), which was sent to the parties on 5th August 1998. It followed a hearing which, according to the first page of the extended reasons, sat from 6th-14th April and 27th and 29th July 1998. The unanimous decision of the tribunal was that:

"(i) the Applicant was fairly dismissed;

(ii) the Applicant was not the subject of discrimination on the grounds of her race;

(iii) the Applicant was not the subject of discrimination on the grounds of her sex."

There was a long judgment given by the Employment Tribunal and there was Notice of Appeal which had an annexe to it from Ms Graham containing a large number of pages which we have read in advance of the hearing and from which we had tentatively concluded that there was something to go forward to a full hearing.

We have had the advantage of hearing Mr Wilson from the Employment Law Appeal Advisory Scheme for the appellant today and he has satisfied us that there are points to go forward. Mr Wilson submits, and we think that it is arguable, that on an appeal Ms Graham should be permitted to argue that there is an element of perversity in the decision reached on unfair dismissal and race discrimination; and that there is an issue, perhaps, for bias to be raised on all three issues. Further, Mr Wilson suggests that when the papers have been further analysed there may be an arguable case that there was a misdirection on one part of the law which should go forward to appeal.

We have concluded that the appropriate directions which we can give at this hearing are to allow Ms Graham to submit an amended Notice of Appeal within 21 days of today, a copy of that will be sent to the respondents for their comments. There has already been one affidavit sworn by Ms Graham to support the allegation of bias. It is clear from what we have read and what Mr Wilson has told us, that a further affidavit is needed so that we can get the reactions, if available, of the Chairman on matters of complaint which should be fully particularised. This affidavit should be put in within 14 days of the amended Notice of Appeal. The Chairman's comments will then be sought on it and possibly that of the side members, if that is appropriate.

Clearly on the matters on which Mr Wilson has addressed us, there are two issues where Chairman's notes will clearly be necessary. That is on the issue of whether there was (a) a vendetta against and (b) victimisation of the appellant about which Mr Benham and Mr Simpson gave evidence. We will therefore ask the Chairman if notes can be provided of the examination and cross-examination and re-examination, if appropriate, of those witnesses on those subjects.

There is a finding in the decision in paragraph 12 that there was consultation of the respondents with the trade union and the appellant, that is found in 12(d) and in paragraph (f). Mr Wilson submits on instruction, that there was no such consultation. Rather than ask at this stage for the Chairman's notes to see whether this is right or wrong, it would be sensible for those who will, we hope, be advising the appellant, to enquire of the respondents as to whether or not this is accepted, if it is not accepted further directions will have to be given for Chairman's notes.

This is obviously a complicated case. We therefore think what we should do today, having given the directions we have, is to adjourn this to come for an inter partes directions hearing as soon as possible after the Notice of Appeal has been served and the affidavits and comments have been obtained.