Appeal No.	 EAT/838/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 November 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP
MISS C HOLROYD

MR E JEDLA	APPELLANT

PROCTER & GAMBLE (Health & Beauty Care)	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MS BROOKS
(of Counsel)
ELAAS	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law to be found in a Notice of Appeal raised by Mr Jedla against decisions of an Industrial Tribunal on liability and on remedy. The tribunal concluded on liability that he had been unfairly dismissed, but assessed his loss on the basis that there would have to be a 90% reduction. At the hearing on remedy, they awarded £5,460 compensation.

	The argument that seems to us to be arguable, relates to the way the tribunal dealt with re-engagement. It would appear from the respondents’ amended PHD form that they themselves recognised that there may have been an error in that respect. They will wish to argue, apparently in due course, that such an error would have made no difference.

	This is a point which may be of some wider interest than just the parties themselves. Because after the dismissal, the applicant suffered a stroke, and the relationship between his present disability and the workings of the re-engagement provisions in the employment legislation will be of interest and require careful consideration. We give no indication as to the likely outcome of submission on this point, but we do think that Mr Jedla is entitled to argue before us that he was entitled to have considered by the Industrial Tribunal his claim for re-engagement, particularly having regard to the findings of facts made by the Industrial Tribunal in their remedies decision, namely the nature of the work which Mr Jedla had been seeking to obtain by way of mitigating his loss. 

	Accordingly, on that issue and that issue alone, we think that the appeal raises an arguable point of law.

	I should say that Mr Jedla has indicated to us that he would be content that his appeal should be confined to that issue, but I should shortly say that it seemed to us that none of the factual disputes raised in the Notice of Appeal gave rise to any arguable point of law with which we could deal. As to the amount of the reduction in the award, it seems to us that it would be a point which should not be further considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal having regard to the very limited jurisdiction which we have only to revisit decisions where there are arguable points of law. The decision as to how much reduction there should be in an award, is essentially a matter of fact which is likely never to be appealable to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

	On that basis, the case will proceed. It is plainly a Category B case. I would think that we ought to allow half a day for the hearing. At the present time I do not consider that Notes of Evidence will be required.