United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T LINDEN (of Counsel) Instructed By: Mr B Clarke Messrs Pattinson & Brewer Solicitors 30 Great James Street London WC1N 3HA


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC: We think that in this case there is an arguable point of law which should go forward for consideration, by a full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

1. The issue in essence is the extent to which the discretion afforded by the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure is circumscribed in the circumstances of the present case by, first of all a consideration of the effect of the Affleck judgment, that is the case of Affleck & Others v Newcastle MIND [1999] IRLR 405. Although that case begins by dealing with the particular circumstances of Newcastle MIND as a charity and unincorporated association and making reference in the first paragraph to what might be described, and have been described by Mr Linden on behalf of Mrs Turner, as policy considerations which related peculiarly to those who subscribe to charities, nonetheless, as was pointed out in the course of the hearing, the last sentence in paragraph 7 appears to lay down a general proposition of law in respect of unincorporated associations and the contracts of employment which they have. However, it may be that that position would have to be moderated if it were to turn out, upon examination of the rules and constitution of an association, that there was no management committee.
2. The guidance given by the Affleck case, at paragraph 13, suggests that a Respondent should be one person, sued on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other members of the executive committee at the relevant time.
3. We have considerable hesitation in reading too much into a decision which is necessarily brief. It is however, undoubtedly the case that the documents we have do not show that the Affleck case was drawn to the attention of the Chairman of the Norwich Tribunal before reaching the conclusion he did in respect of the proposed amendment.
4. It is common ground that the amendment was made because Mrs Turner had difficulty in enforcing an order to pay her redundancy compensation, nominally against the Norwich Airport Staff Sports and Social Club, for reasons which are more fully explored in the judgment which this Tribunal has given this morning in respect of the proposed appeal by Mr Jordan in respect of the self same decision of the Chairman.
5. The second reason why we think that there may be an arguable point of law which requires consideration by a full Tribunal relates to the background, as I have just explained it, and whether in the circumstances of this case, given in particular the difficulties in the availability of Mr Jordan and his refusal to accept the Tribunal decision in her favour, Mrs Turner's interests in securing payment of the redundancy sum due to her, by virtue of a decision of the Employment Tribunal, would be properly protected by the order which was, in fact, made.
6. We should say no more about the merits of the appeal and return now to deal with the procedural orders which are needed.