United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR J SYKES (Legal Representative) BM36 London WC1N 3XX


 


JUDGE HICKS: We have decided to send this appeal forward to a full hearing, but on certain limited grounds, reformulated as follows:

"1. The Tribunal misdirected itself in that it failed to given any reasons for finding Mr Page a truthful witness, in the light of the fact that he had been demonstrated to have misled the Tribunal in asserting that he personally had "got Mr Duffy to sign a confirmation of" Mr Babb's statement of 17 April 1997 and that that confirmation and Mr Duffy's signature were written by Mr Duffy when, as he later admitted, none of those assertions was true.

1. The Tribunal misdirected itself in misstating the effect of material evidence, namely Mr Page's evidence that he only "possibly" spoke to Mr Grey, or "was not sure" if he had done so, when in truth Mr Page asserted throughout that he had spoken to Mr Grey and the Tribunal inferentially accepted Mr Grey's evidence that he had not.
2. The Tribunal misdirected itself in taking no account of the employer's unfairness in:

(i) failing to give the Appellant sufficient notice of the disciplinary hearing

(ii) failing to warn the Appellant that a potential outcome of the disciplinary hearing was instant dismissal

(iii) failing to inform the Appellant of his right to representation at the disciplinary hearing, or to give him the opportunity of being represented

(iv) failing to conduct a proper investigation of the allegations against the Appellant

(v) failing to conduct any, or any proper, investigation of the cross-allegation of assault made by the Appellant against Mr Babb

(vi) failing to advise the Appellant of his right to appeal or to give him the opportunity of pursuing an appeal."

Those are the grounds which we direct shall go forward. We shall direct notes of evidence of Messrs Rookwood, Page, Grey and Duffy.

Mr Sykes, who appeared for Mr Rookwood before us, adopted the above grounds as an Amended Notice of Appeal and in response to a direct question confirmed that he did not require us to deliver a reasoned judgment in support of our dismissal of the remaining grounds of appeal.