United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC:

1. This is an appeal by Miss Karen Oakley ("the Appellant") from a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Stratford from 18 to 20 June 2001 and subsequently in Chambers. The decision of the Tribunal was promulgated on 18 September 2001 and from that decision the Appellant appeals.
2. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the Appellant, one of the Applicants below, had been fairly dismissed by the Respondent by reason of redundancy and whether there was unlawful discrimination on the grounds of their gender. The Tribunal held that the grounds were not made out and that all three Applicants there were fairly dismissed.
3. From that decision Miss Oakley appeals. Essentially she says that some witnesses did not attend, her representative had no legal training and many issues were not touched upon. In fact she was represented by a lay representative but the Respondent was represented by experienced Counsel, who would have the duty to the Employment Tribunal to make sure that all issues properly arising on the pleadings were brought to the Tribunal's attention.
4. We have carefully read the Extended Reasons and we found the reasoning of the Tribunal compelling in reaching its decisions. In those circumstances we do not see any arguable case to go forward to a full appeal.
5. The fact that there was a lay representative certainly does not raise a ground of appeal and it is quite clear, on the facts which were found, that the Tribunal was entitled to find that the Appellant was redundant. She has written us a letter to say that due to domestic responsibilities she was unable to attend today. We are sorry that she has not had the opportunity to say anything she wanted to say to us in person but we have a suspicion that it probably would not have affected the result.
6. In these circumstances we dismiss this appeal at this stage.