Appeal No.	 EAT/191/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 12 July 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON
MR J A SCOULLER

INITAL CONTRACT SERVICES LTD	APPELLANTS

MR C RILEY	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR JEREMY  McMULLEN QC
& MR DANIEL OUDKERK
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Mr D L Thomas
Legal Executive
Initial Contract Services Ltd
Unit P, Gunnelswood Park
Gunnelswood Road
Stevenage
Hertfordshire
SG1 2BH	

	JUDGE HAROLD WILSON:	This was the preliminary hearing in the appeal by the company which was the respondent in the Originating Application. The appellant company was represented by Mr Jeremy McMullen QC and Mr Daniel Oudkerk who consented to the preliminary hearing being dealt with by the Judge and one member.

	The applicant in the Originating Application had worked since 1979 for a firm which transferred responsibility for its cleaning operations to another firm in 1996. The Transfer of Undertaking Regulations applied to the transfer. From a time before the transfer, the applicant’s employers were proposing a wage level materially lower than that enjoyed by the applicant but nothing came of those proposals because of united opposition from the workforce. Later on however, the appellant company made proposals which involved significant cuts in the applicant’s basic pay and other benefits and, when the applicant refused to accept, he was dismissed. At the conclusion of the evidence, the matter had to be adjourned to a later date. When the proceedings recommenced the Chairman made comments before having heard submissions and thereafter, following submissions, found against the appellant company. The Notice of Appeal asserts that the Employment Tribunal misdirected itself and came to a decision which was perverse. It is further asserted that the comments made by the Chairman created a procedural irregularity and suggested that the tribunal had formed a concluded view before hearing submissions about the issues.

	We are of the unanimous opinion that this matter should go forward to full argument on the basis of the matters set out in the Notice of Appeal and in the skeleton argument submitted for today’s proceedings. We place the matter in Category B and give a time estimate of 1 day.