United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellants
For the Respondents	MISS A PALMER (of Counsel) Instructed by: Manchester City Airport Legal Department


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. This appeal comes before me for further directions in the following circumstances. The relevant complaint by the two Appellants before the Manchester Employment Tribunal was that of unfair dismissal. By a Decision dated 25 March 1999, the Tribunal, chaired by Mr C J Chapman, found that neither Appellant had been dismissed by the relevant employer, found to be the second Respondent, Ringway Handling Services Ltd, (RHSL). Accordingly the complaints failed.
2. Against that Decision both Appellants appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. At a preliminary hearing held before a division presided over by His Honour Judge Colin Smith QC on 24 January 2000, that division took the view that there was one potentially arguable ground of appeal, namely that the Tribunal had failed to consider whether or not a collective agreement, made between the Transport and General Workers Union and RHSL in November 1995, was incorporated into the individual contracts of employment of the Appellants. However, before deciding whether the point could properly be argued at a full hearing it was necessary for the Appellants' adviser to see a copy of that collective agreement. In these circumstances that ground of appeal only was adjourned so that the Appellants could obtain copies of the collective agreement. All other grounds at that stage were dismissed.
3. The case came back at a resumed preliminary hearing before a division presided over by His Honour Judge Robert Reid QC on 26 October 2000. The Appellants did not appear on that occasion and the preliminary hearing was further adjourned with a direction that the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union should swear an affidavit exhibiting the relevant collective agreement.
4. Next, the appeals came before a division presided over by Mr Justice Hooper on 23 March 2001. The appeals were allowed to proceed to a full hearing on the single ground originally identified by Judge Colin Smith at the first hearing, with a direction that Mr Bowen, the Transport and General Workers Union official who had represented the Appellants before the Manchester Employment Tribunal, was to provide his comments on the EAT judgment.
5. Mr Bowen did so by letter dated 20 July 2001 which I can only describe as Delphic.
6. Mr Justice Hooper further indicated that the matter should be re-listed for directions once the further steps identified in that judgment had been taken. So the matter comes before me.
7. By a letter dated 26 September, the Appellant Mr Maguire applied for an adjournment of this directions hearing on the grounds that he was unfit to attend. That application was considered and rejected by the Registrar.
8. Mr Cooper does not appear today, but the Respondents are represented by Miss Palmer of Counsel. It seems to me that the Tribunal hearing the full appeal, pursuant to Mr Justice Hooper's Order, will be further assisted by an affidavit sworn on behalf of the Respondents, and in particular the second Respondent, stating the Respondent's position as to whether or not a point was taken by Mr Bowen on behalf of the Appellants before the Employment Tribunal as to whether the November 1995 collective agreement was incorporated into the individual contracts of employment.
9. Further, it seems to me that this ground of appeal, which is set out on page 2 C - D of Judge Colin Smith's judgment, delivered in January 2000, should be put before the Chairman, Mr Chapman, for his comment as to whether or not any point was taken by Mr Bowen on the incorporation into the individual contracts of employment of the November 1995 collective agreement. Once that material has been collected, the matter may be listed for half a day, Category C.
10. I should add this. If it transpires that the point as to incorporation of the collective agreement was not taken before the Employment Tribunal, then further prosecution of this appeal will, arguably, be unnecessary within the meaning of Rule 34(1) of the EAT Rules, and in those circumstances the Appellants should understand that they may be at risk of a costs Order in the event that the appeal fails at the full hearing.