United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR D GALASSI (Solicitor - Pro Bono)


 


MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: This is an appeal from a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (South) on 15th December 1999 in respect of which extended reasons were provided on 11th January 2000.

1. It raises issues under the Working Time Regulations in circumstances where the employees were working under contracts of employment for the respondent in the day time and additionally working casually for the same employer at night. They have an entitlement under the Working Time Regulations for their day work. That much is not dispute. The dispute is as to whether or not the provisions of the Working Time Regulations accrue to their benefit in relation to the casual night work.
2. We have considered the arguments that Mr Galassi has put forward to us. At this stage we are only concerned with this appeal as a preliminary hearing. We have come to the conclusion that the points raised, or at least some of them, are such as to justify and necessitate a full hearing and accordingly we shall give permission for this matter to proceed to a full hearing.
3. We hope that when it does, not only are the appellants legally represented, as they are today, but that the respondent employer is represented as well. We observe that the employer was not represented before the Employment Tribunal.
4. The arguments which seem to us to merit further and deeper consideration are the ones that fall within paragraphs 3(1) and 8 of the skeleton argument. We do not think that this is a case that is arguable on the basis of perversity, nor do we think there is anything in the reasons submission that is in paragraph 7 of the skeleton argument.
5. We envisage the way forward being that Mr Galassi should draft amended grounds of appeal embracing paragraphs 3(1) and 8 of his skeleton argument, thus enabling him to make all his points by reference to the correct construction of the Regulations.
6. The matter should then proceed in listing Category B. We consider that it is unlikely to occupy the time of the Employment Appeal Tribunal for more than two hours and that there should be the usual direction for skeleton arguments.
7. We emphasise that we are doing no more than deciding that the points to which we have referred as worthy of further consideration are arguable. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen.