United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR S GORTON (Solicitor) Messrs Weightmans Solicitors 79-83 Colmore Row Birmingham B3 2AP


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: In this case the London South Employment Tribunal, in a decision with extended reasons dated 7 August 1998, found that the Appellant company, Whitbread Plc trading as Whitbread Medway Inns, dismissed the Applicant below, Mr Hall, from his employment as manager of their public house, the George Inn, Southwark, on grounds of his conduct. Following earlier warnings, including a final written warning in respect of stock deficiencies, the Applicant admitted certain disciplinary matters at a hearing held on 28 January 1998. The details are at paragraph 12 of the Tribunal's reasons.

His claim of unfair dismissal succeeded on the grounds that, in the Tribunal's view, the disciplinary enquiries were fatally flawed for the reasons set out at paragraph 22.

In this appeal against that decision Mr Gorton has identified three particular grounds of complaint in the Notice of Appeal and, more particularly, in a skeleton argument developed in oral submissions. We think that the appeal should proceed to a full hearing on those three grounds as presently constituted. The test being whether or not we think those points are arguable. We therefore need say no more about the merits of the appeal.

For the purpose of that hearing we shall give the following directions: the case will be listed for half a day, category C. The Chairman will be asked to comment on this matter, raised before us by Mr Gorton; at the close of the Tribunal hearing we are told that an ex tempore judgment was given, including the finding of unfair dismissal. We are also told that Mr Gorton invited the Tribunal to indicate whether or not they found that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to the employer. It is said that the Tribunal acceded to that invitation and an indication was given that by a majority of 2:1 the Tribunal had concluded that dismissal did fall within the range of reasonable responses. We invite the Chairman's comments on those observations. Secondly, the Chairman is asked to provide his notes of evidence in relation to Miss Hayes' evidence as to her considerations as to penalty.

Finally the parties are directed to agree a bundle of the documents which were before the Employment Tribunal and which are relevant to the issues raised in this appeal. There will be the usual order for exchange of skeleton arguments, copies to be lodged here, not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing.