Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Inital Contract Services Ltd v. Riley [1999] UKEAT 191_99_1207 (12 July 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/191_99_1207.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 191_99_1207
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON
MR J A SCOULLER
INITAL CONTRACT SERVICES LTD APPELLANT
MR C RILEY RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE
| For the Appellants | MR JEREMY McMULLEN QC & MR DANIEL OUDKERK (of Counsel) Instructed by: Mr D L Thomas Legal Executive Initial Contract Services Ltd Unit P, Gunnelswood Park Gunnelswood Road Stevenage Hertfordshire SG1 2BH |
JUDGE HAROLD WILSON: This was the preliminary hearing in the appeal by the company which was the respondent in the Originating Application. The appellant company was represented by Mr Jeremy McMullen QC and Mr Daniel Oudkerk who consented to the preliminary hearing being dealt with by the Judge and one member.
The applicant in the Originating Application had worked since 1979 for a firm which transferred responsibility for its cleaning operations to another firm in 1996. The Transfer of Undertaking Regulations applied to the transfer. From a time before the transfer, the applicant's employers were proposing a wage level materially lower than that enjoyed by the applicant but nothing came of those proposals because of united opposition from the workforce. Later on however, the appellant company made proposals which involved significant cuts in the applicant's basic pay and other benefits and, when the applicant refused to accept, he was dismissed. At the conclusion of the evidence, the matter had to be adjourned to a later date. When the proceedings recommenced the Chairman made comments before having heard submissions and thereafter, following submissions, found against the appellant company. The Notice of Appeal asserts that the Employment Tribunal misdirected itself and came to a decision which was perverse. It is further asserted that the comments made by the Chairman created a procedural irregularity and suggested that the tribunal had formed a concluded view before hearing submissions about the issues.
We are of the unanimous opinion that this matter should go forward to full argument on the basis of the matters set out in the Notice of Appeal and in the skeleton argument submitted for today's proceedings. We place the matter in Category B and give a time estimate of 1 day.