Appeal No.	EAT/1159/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 July 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR R JACKSON
MRS R A VICKERS

MS R GLASGOW	APPELLANT

COMPANY X FASHIONS LTD & MR B BAUMAL	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MS S DREW
(of Counsel)
Camden Community Law Centre
2 Prince of Wales Road
London
NW5 3LG	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:     This appeal raises three separate areas of complaint:

(1)  that the Tribunal majority fell into error in their approach to the issue of justification raised in the Appellant’s complaint of sex discrimination

(2)  that the Tribunal erred in their approach to the question of a variation to the contract of employment, altering the Appellant’s hours of work from full-time to part-time and on the Tribunal’s findings back to full-time work.  In relation to this point Ms Drew submits that the Tribunal has failed to make necessary findings of fact in order to determine the issue.

(3)  that the Tribunal has conflated the question of reasonableness under section 98 (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 with the question of whether or not the Respondent was in breach of contract in requiring the Appellant to revert to full-time work, failing which she would be and indeed was dismissed.

	Having considered the way in which these points are put by Ms Drew in the Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument and further developed in oral submission before us today, we consider that each is arguable and that the appeal as constituted should proceed to a full appeal hearing.

	For that purpose we direct that the case be listed for one day, Category B.  Skeleton arguments to be exchanged between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing.  Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged with this Tribunal at the same time.

	Finally, we direct that the Chairman, Mr Leahy, be asked to provide his notes of the evidence of Brian Baumal and David Baumal, restricted to their evidence, both in-chief and cross-examination, in relation to the issue of justification.