United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR CARPENTER (Husband)


 


MR JUSTICE NELSON: This is a Preliminary Hearing ex parte in which the Appellants contend that there are arguable grounds for a full hearing to go ahead on this matter in which they appeal the decision of the Employment Tribunal at Reading, a hearing that took place on 22 September 1999 and then on 6 December 1999, the Extended Reasons being given on 11 January 2000.

1. The points which are made by the Appellant are these. That the decision of the Tribunal in dismissing the Applicant's claim of constructive dismissal is arguably wrong for these reasons. Firstly, the fact that there was a 75-day gap between the hearing on 22 September 1999 and Monday 6 December 1999, which was too long a gap for the Tribunal to be able to deal properly and fairly with the evidence, part of which they had heard on Wednesday, the 22^nd, and the remaining outstanding witness on 6 December.
2. Secondly, it is said, that the job evaluation which lay at the heart of the dispute was not properly considered and thirdly, it is said, that the Tribunal did not ask itself the question as to why a Mrs Dolton, who had also complained about her treatment at the hand of the employers, was not there to give evidence before them.
3. In addition to those matters we have also read the detailed written submissions from Mr and Mrs Carpenter in two letters, 30 January 2000, signed by both of them, and also 16 January 2000, a more lengthy document by Mrs Carpenter. We have considered all the matters there set out.
4. Dealing with the three points that are made today. First of all, the gap in the hearing time between 22 September and 6 December 1999; it is inherent in the nature of a Tribunal's hearing that the time estimated may not always prove to be sufficient and an adjournment may be necessary. Because of the fact that Tribunal Members are part-time and are therefore not available throughout every day of every working week, it is not infrequently the case that an adjournment has to be for some period of time before all the members of the same constitution can be re-gathered to continue hearing the case. This is not only inherent in the system, but a process with which members of the Tribunal are experienced at dealing. They are able and experienced at dealing with the delays made necessary, by the nature of the constitution of Tribunals. No proper criticism can be made against this Employment Tribunal for the length of this particular adjournment.
5. We have looked at all the complaints in writing and we are satisfied that there is no proper basis for saying that there is anything within the Decision which indicates that the matter was not given the clearest possible care and consideration by the Tribunal.
6. The fact that the Chairman of the Tribunal at the end of the first hearing indicated that no decision of any kind whatsoever had been or could have been made at that stage and the matters must await the balance of the hearing, was not only right and proper but essential as part of the proper judicial process. No criticism on this ground can properly be levelled at all and it cannot, in any way, constitute a point of law.
7. As to the job evaluation, the Tribunal considered this matter with care and at length and made their findings upon it. We are quite satisfied that they did so properly and, again, there can be no criticism of their decision, no error of law arises.
8. Thirdly, it is said that in relation to Mrs Dolton, she too shared the same views as Mrs Carpenter about the problems arising from the job evaluation and had other complaints against her employers, and that she, in effect, should have been called as a witness. It was made plain to us today however, by Mr Carpenter, that he and Mrs Carpenter made a decision not to call Mrs Dolton themselves because of the undue pressure that they felt that would place upon her, but hoped that the Respondents would in fact call her to give evidence, enabling them to cross examine her to allow the evidence to be brought forth. That did not happen. Again, no criticism of the Tribunal can be made. It has to deal with the evidence before it and if the parties choose not to bring evidence before the Court, they cannot then challenge the Tribunal for not having considered evidence which was not called. It would be inappropriate to do so.
9. We have looked at the matter overall and the decision overall and we are fully aware of the fact that Mr and Mrs Carpenter, as they made plain in their written submissions, have found it difficult to come to terms with the decision. For that reason we have looked to see whether, there can be said to be any error of law, as opposed to an error of fact, which could properly be the subject of the appeal. Having gone through that exercise we are quite satisfied that no error of law was made. In those circumstances the appeal must be dismissed.