Appeal No.	 EAT/596/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 2 October 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HICKS QC
MR R JACKSON
MRS J M MATTHIAS

BLUESTAR GROUP	APPELLANT

MISS M REED	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	No representative	
For the Respondent	No representative	

	JUDGE J HICKS QC:  	Maxine Reed was employed by the Appellants, Bluestar Group from 28 July 1997 until 18 August, on which date she left at 1.30 after a conversation of some acrimony with her employer.  She made a claim for the outstanding unpaid money that she said was due to her.  At the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal the employer was not in attendance or represented and therefore the evidence before the Tribunal was simply that of  Miss Reed, which led the Tribunal to find that she was entitled to 16 days’ pay at £41.25  per day , plus an extra 4 hours on the 17th day at £5.00 an hour, giving a total of £680.

	That was based on evidence from her that she worked five days a weeks at 8 hours per day and that the rate was £5.00 per hour.

	In their Notice of Appearance the only factual matter advanced by Miss Reed in her Originating Application disputed by the employers was the hourly rate, which they said was £4.50 per hour, not £5.00.

	In their Notice of Appeal her employers do not raise the matter of the hourly rate at all, but they do contest almost everything else, namely that the hours per day they say were 7 not 8, that she only worked for 11 days not 16, that she left earlier on the final day than the Tribunal had found, and (and this is the only ground on which they seek to appeal) that they had no opportunity or reasonable notification of the hearing.  They give no dates as to when they were notified, but it is inherent in the complaint of lack of reasonable notification that they had some notification.  They do not allege that they applied either in writing or by telephone or in any other way for an adjournment or postponement of the hearing, and today they did not appear before us.

	We understand that a message was received at the office of this Tribunal this morning that they were on the way but had been delayed, but later a faxed message was received saying that they would not be in at all because the Legal Director, who had presumably been intending to attend, was ill.  

	In our view, neither procedurally nor on the merits is there the slightest prospect of success in this Appeal and we dismiss it.