United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS A HARTNELL (Solicitor) Underwoods 83/85 Marlowes Hemel Hempstead Herts HP1 1LF


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY

1. We have before us as a preliminary hearing the appeal of Mr Andrew Raza in the matter Raza v BTR Ceiling Systems (UK) Ltd. Today Ms Hartnell has appeared pro bono for Mr Raza and we are grateful for the skeleton argument which was prepared on Mr Raza's behalf and which we have had the opportunity of reading.
2. In our view, the Notice of Appeal does raise arguable issues appropriate to be taken forward to a full hearing but there are one or two matters that need some clarification and which will need to be clarified before the full hearing.
3. Firstly, Section 1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 speaks of whether a requirement or condition was applied, in this case to Mr Raza, in the circumstances described in 1(1)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii). It is not immediately clear to us what was the precise requirement or condition the application of which to Mr Raza was in issue below.
4. Within 28 days of there being sent out to the parties the transcript of this judgement, the parties are, if possible, to agree, firstly, word for word what was the language of the conditional requirement which the parties understood was the conditional requirement ruled upon below.
5. Secondly, if no formulation of the requirement or condition was put to the Employment Tribunal below, what is it that the parties agree is the appropriate formulation of requirement or condition that falls to be considered in this case.
6. If within that period of 28 days the parties cannot agree, then it may be necessary for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to request the Chairman's assistance on the point and, if that proves to be the case, then in the first place an application for such assistance to be required of the Chairman is to be made in writing to the President.
7. Secondly, it is not clear if any evidence was given below as to what one might call the minimum time needed for an appropriate celebration of the Festival of Eid, nor as to whether any evidence was given as to whether an hour off between 1 and 2pm on 16 March, either at the beginning or the end of the shift, would have sufficed for a not disrespectful observation of the festival.
8. Also, as a third point, it is not at all clear whether any evidence was given as to comparators and how the comparators were treated or would have been treated. If (again within the 28-day period described earlier) the parties are able to agree what evidence was given on those subjects, then it may be that no Chairman's note will be necessary. But if no such agreement can be reached, then there may need to be a request for the Chairman's notes on those subjects and, if that proves to be the case, again the matter is first to be dealt with in writing to the President.
9. Otherwise it seems to us that only standard directions are needed, namely that skeleton arguments should be exchanged not less than 14 days before the hearing. I think the matter should be reserved to the President for the time being on an estimate of 1 day.