United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr Sheldon (Of Counsel) ELAAS


 


MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:

1. This matter has been listed before us this morning by way of a preliminary hearing. At this hearing the appellant, Dr Awad has the considerable advantage of representation through the ELAAS scheme by Mr Sheldon. Mr Sheldon's first application which we grant, is it to amend Dr Awad's Notice of Appeal, by adding two grounds of appeal.
2. It is those grounds of appeal that have been argued before us this morning, the object being to persuade us they raise issues such as merit the adjournment of this appeal and the subsequent holding of an inter-partes hearing. Turning to the first such ground, now introduced by Mr Sheldon is in these terms.

"The Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider one of the essential complaints made by the appellant, namely whether he was victimised under the Race Relations Act 1976 in that the respondents stopped the appellant from working on or after 5 August 1998, following the submission of the appellant's letter of protest referred to at paragraph 14 of the decision.

Further, whether this act of victimisation was part of a 'continuous act', arising out of an earlier complaint of discrimination against the BBC, the former employer of the appellant and Mrs Mohtadi a manager working for the respondent at the same time as the appellant".

3. Pausing there, we interpose the observation that Mr Sheldon's submissions are based primarily on paragraph 14, such including an arguably opaque finding by the Tribunal:

"Following receipt of that letter the Respondent did not allow Dr Awad to work for them again and Dr Awad told us in his evidence that he did not work for the Respondent after July 1998".

4. He further points out that when the Tribunal comes to make its findings in paragraphs 24 onwards, there is no reference at all to that letter, nor, to that finding of fact. It is in those circumstances that Mr Sheldon submits that the point capsulated in his ground of appeal is raised.
5. We agree with Mr Sheldon that that is a point that is raised and one that merits an inter-partes hearing and our order will be that this appeal will be adjourned to allow that to take place. Mr Sheldon has taken a second point in these terms.

"The Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider one of the essential complaints made by the appellant, namely whether he had been discriminated against under the Race Relations Act on grounds of national origin (the appellant is a Sudanese national), by failing to offer him a contract of employment. Further alternatively the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant had not been discriminated against by the respondent in not being given an written contract of employment was one which no reasonable Employment Tribunal directing itself properly in law could have arrived at".

6. Mr Sheldon will forgive us, this second point had somewhat less impact than the first point given that the essential case that Dr Awad appears to be presenting to the Tribunal, was that he did have a contract of employment at a salary of £30,000 per year, and all that he lacked was such in writing, contentions of fact which were respectively rejected.
7. However, Mr Sheldon does point out that at an interlocutory stage, Dr Awad had sought particulars from the respondent of the nationality of "employees/contractors", that is, he had sought by way of disclosure material which went straight to this issue. In the event, as is apparent in paragraph 6 of the extended reasons, he was unable to secure an order for the delivery of such particulars, the Tribunal comforting itself with the reflection that Dr Awad would have the opportunity by way of cross-examination to illicit that information.
8. Presently, there is no indication from the extended reason that Dr Awad did illicit that information, but it is to be remembered that he was unrepresented. Thus, there is a matter that merits some consideration on an inter-parties hearing which comes broadly under the rubric of Mr Sheldon's second ground and that relates to the failure of the Tribunal to look further into the matter that was by inference raised by Dr Awad at the interlocutory stage.
9. For those reasons we make the order as already indicated, we would adjudge that the matter is likely to take half a day, its listing category is C. We have already given leave for the Notice of Appeal to be amended by the addition of these two grounds. We do not give leave to proceed on the other grounds and thus these two grounds must be regarded as being in substitution.
10. We would finally direct that there be an exchange of skeleton arguments, 14 days before the date of the inter-parties hearing. We will direct that the chairman's note be transcribed and made available to this Tribunal.