United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR YIANNI (Representative)


 


JUDGE PROPHET:

1. Mrs Joyce Yianni, who is a nurse, submitted through her solicitors a complaint of unfair dismissal against her former employer, Dr Newport and Partners, to the Employment Tribunal at London South in March 2002.
2. In the Notice of Appearance the employer resisted the complaint. However, when the case came up for hearing before an Employment Tribunal at London South on 25 June 2002, with Mr Singh as the Chairman, the employer decided to concede that Mrs Yianni had been unfairly dismissed. That left as the only outstanding matter the remedy consequent upon the unfair dismissal.
3. In our papers there appear to be two different versions of the decision by the Employment Tribunal, both signed by Mr Singh.
4. The first, promulgated on 11 July 2002, sets out the Decision but gives no Reasons and no indication that there were any matters of dispute for the Employment Tribunal to resolve. That version also says that the lay members were Mr Patterson and Ms Jones. Mr Yianni, who has been present here today representing his wife, has advised us that his recollection is that those were the correct lay members.
5. The second version was promulgated on 17 October 2002, some four months after the hearing and makes no reference to the first version. In that second version, the decision is recorded similarly to that in the first version, but this time there are Extended Reasons. Those clearly indicate that there was a remedies hearing with matters of dispute which the Employment Tribunal was called upon to resolve, notwithstanding there is nothing in the Decision itself to indicate their findings in those disputed areas, or to confirm what would appear to be awards of compensation in paragraph 15 of the Extended Reasons. Furthermore, the lay members on this version have changed to Ms Dean and Mr Christie.
6. We would venture to suggest that a discussion between the Regional Chairman and Mr Singh in respect of the above matters may well be appropriate, irrespective of the final outcome of this appeal.
7. The thrust of the appeal itself, as indicated by Mr Yianni today, is that the conduct of the hearing was far from satisfactory. We are bound to say that it is our view at the preliminary hearing that a detailed enquiry is called for with a view to ascertaining whether there is any substance in those complaints and whether there is a need for a re-hearing on remedy.
8. There has been an affidavit from Mrs Yianni which has produced comments from Mr Singh, but the confusion about the lay members, indicated above, seems to have extended to their being asked to provide their comments and it may be that the Regional Chairman could ensure that the correct lay members are able to provide those comments before the full hearing of this appeal.
9. We therefore pass this appeal on for consideration at a full hearing of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It will be Category C with a time estimate of two hours. Standard directions will apply.
10. This short transcript has been produced, because of the matters which have come to our attention at this stage in respect of the papers before us.