United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant
For the Respondent	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Respondent


 


MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

1. This is an interlocutory appeal from a Decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Bury St Edmunds on 25 September this year. On that occasion, there was listed a hearing of Mr Murray's application, complaining of wrongful dismissal and an unauthorised deduction from his wages.
2. In the event, Mr Murray did not attend. As to that, the Employment Tribunal said this:

"He has telephoned the Tribunal and told a member of staff that he knew nothing about the hearing date until late last night. That is clearly untrue. The applicant wrote to the Tribunal in his own handwriting, referring to the hearing date as 25 September. He wrote that letter on 20 August. He also spoke to a member of the Tribunal staff on 19 September during the course of which conversation it was explained to him where Bury St Edmunds was and that the hearing was on 25 September."

Notwithstanding that lack of candour on the part of the Applicant, the Employment Tribunal decided to let him have:

"one last chance to present his case."

3. In due course, a new date was fixed. However, when it was fixed, it was inconvenient for the Respondent, who had attended the original hearing date, represented by their Personnel Manager.
4. The Employment Tribunal refused to vacate the new date at the request of the employer. That led to a letter from the employer, dated 16 November. The relevant part reads as follows:

"Mr Mitchell [that is to say the Chairman] ruled that although Mr Murray failed to attend the originally arranged date and lied as to the reasons for his failure to attend, a further opportunity should be given to Mr Murray to present his case. A date is requested by Mr Murray and arranged by the Employment Tribunal without knowledge of my business agenda, to accommodate Mr Murray's deception, yet my request to rearrange a date approved by Mr Murray is denied.

I find your decision biased and unfair and request the decision of Mr Mitchell is reviewed."

We infer from the fact that the matter is now the subject of an appeal that the Decision has not been reviewed or at least has not been reviewed in the manner which the employer was suggesting.

5. Although the material we have in relation to this appeal is somewhat scanty, it does seem to us that it would be unjust and therefore unreasonable, if a new date were arranged without regard to the convenience of the employer, when it is the employee, on the findings of the Employment Tribunal, who was solely unreasonably and dishonestly responsible for the vacation of the previous hearing date. In one sense, the employee is rather fortunate still to be in the game, so to speak.
6. In those circumstances, assuming that there is a subsisting Decision of the Employment Tribunal insisting upon a date inconvenient to the employer, we shall allow the employer's appeal and remit the matter to the Employment Tribunal so that a date can be arranged which gives due consideration to the convenience of both parties.
7. In reaching this decision, we note that Mr Murray has indicated by way of respondent's answer that he does not oppose the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, with the direction to which we have referred.