United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR SIMON PERHAR (of Counsel) Instructed By: Barnes & Partners 4 Little Park Gardens Enfield Middlesex EN2 6PQ


 


MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:

1. This is a preliminary hearing of Mrs Marcelline's proposed appeal against a decision of an Employment Tribunal which found that she had not been unfairly dismissed. It seems to us that the central issue in the case was whether the way in which the employer expanded the duties to be performed by Mrs Marcelline fell within acceptable bounds or not.
2. It is suggested to us that the decision reached by the Employment Tribunal did not accord with the evidence and, on the face of it, did not seem to refer to some important parts of the evidence. In particular, there is almost no mention of three witnesses who were called on behalf of the Appellant - two of them were still employees of the Respondents at the time and a third had recently retired after being in the same employment for over 40 years. We are told that the evidence of those witnesses, as well as that of the Appellant, pointed to the tasks which were required of Mrs Marcelline going "way beyond the duties of secretary".
3. It seems that there was some acceptance of the proposition that when Mr Baugi became Station Manager in April 1999, because he was inexperienced, Mrs Marcelline was called upon to do a great deal more. All this ultimately was a matter of degree coupled with the legal issue of whether there had been a consensual variation of the contract.
4. In October 1999 Mrs Marcelline was redesignated Traffic Supervisor with a prospect, not immediate, of an increase in her pay. It seems to us that, as with any other case in which an appellant is seeking to challenge factual findings and an assessment of the evidence, Mrs Marcelline will not necessarily have an easy passage when this matter comes for a full hearing.
5. However, we are persuaded that it should come for a full hearing. We also take the view, as Mr Perhar has accepted, that the grounds of appeal ought to be redrafted to reflect the issues as they have been explained to us and as are explained in the skeleton arguments. There must also been an order for Chairman's notes in this case. That is an imposition that we do not impose lightly, particularly having regard to the fact that this case in the Employment Tribunal lasted some three to four days. Nevertheless, in view of the way in which the case is put on behalf of Mrs Marcelline, it seems to us that the Tribunal considering the appeal hereafter would not be able to do it justice without those notes. Accordingly, we direct their production. There will be the usual direction for skeleton arguments. Time estimate is half a day, listing Category C.