Appeal No.	 EAT/1260/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 2 November 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN
MR A C BLYGHTON
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

LIGHTING MAINTENANCE CO. LTD	APPELLANT

MR J P HEAVEY	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR C BARR
(Representative)
Human Resources Manager
OCS Group Plc
Frederick House
Brewer Street
Maidstone ME14 1RY	

	JUDGE J. ALTMAN:	This is an appeal from the decision of the Employment Tribunal held at London (North) on 1 September 1998.  I refer to the parties in their capacity before the Tribunal.  The Respondents appeal from a preliminary determination by the Tribunal that the Originating Application was presented within three months of the effective date of termination and consequently that there was jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  That was the decision as expressed by the Tribunal, but in their extended reasons the Tribunal also found that if they were wrong as to the effective date of termination, they would exercise their discretion to permit the application to proceed, notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit before the commencement of proceedings, because it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the three month period.

	The Respondents argue that by his letter of 12 March 1998 the Applicant effectively brought to an end his employment which they admit in the Notice of Appearance to have been a dismissal.  In the course of their decision, the Employment Tribunal at the bottom of page 2, in paragraph 3 construed the effects of that letter. We have had an opportunity of reading the letter written by the Applicant on 31st March which is the relevant matter and we have come to the conclusion that there is an arguable point of law, that the construction placed upon that letter by the Employment Tribunal, was not one which a reasonable Employment Tribunal, properly directing itself, could have come to.   Accordingly it seems to us that there is on this ground an arguable point of law so as to permit this matter to go forward to a full hearing, and we consider that it should take no more than one hour, it will be listed in Category C, we would ask that it be listed as a priority because it is a preliminary issue and if there is to be a full hearing of the merits before the Employment Tribunal, it is important not to let time slip away.  We direct that the skeleton argument submitted on behalf of the Respondent stand as the skeleton argument at the main appeal and we direct that the Applicant’s skeleton argument be submitted not less than 14 days before the date listed for the appeal.