United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR THOMAS de la MARE (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


JUDGE WILSON: This has been the preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by the applicant in the original case against the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Ashford in Kent dismissing his complaints against the respondent company.

1. The applicant had been employed by the company for 3½ years as the Courier Development Manager. He had been headhunted for that post to set up a new division. He was responsible to the General Sales Manager for sales and in all other respects directly to the Managing Director.
2. Apparently there were some complaints and some undercurrent of dissatisfaction which resulted in a memorandum to the Managing Director which in turn led to the suspension of the applicant following a disciplinary meeting chaired by the Managing Director. There were allegations of sexual harassment and stirring up trouble amongst the staff and incompetence. That was all found to be misconduct for which the applicant was dismissed. He appealed against those findings and what he said was a flawed and unfair procedure but that appeal was rejected.
3. Today, having heard Mr de la Mare on behalf of the proposed appellant, we are satisfied that the matter should go forward for full argument on three questions. The first, whether the Employment Tribunal erred in failing to consider whether the respondent's procedures were flawed and/or unfair. Secondly, whether the evidence before the Employment Tribunal indicated that there was predetermination because of the procedural irregularities. Thirdly and finally, whether, in any event on the matters found proved, dismissal was a sanction which was within the reasonable range of responses from a reasonable employer.
4. We think that the matter should be listed as Category C and should have a time estimate of 2 hours.
5. We make the following directions: that the Chairman be asked to supply his Notes of Evidence; secondly, that the document noted in the extended reasons at 1(8), that is to say the document which appears to be a compilation by Sara Hutchinson of complaints by members of staff about the applicant, should be supplied to the applicant and to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by 4 p.m. on Monday, 4th December 2000; and finally, that skeleton arguments be exchanged between the parties and supplied to the Employment Appeal Tribunal not less than 14 days before the date fixed for hearing.