Appeal No.	 EAT/195/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 4 May 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR J A SCOULLER

(1) MR HAROLD TODD (2) MR PAUL SAUNDERS 	APPELLANTS
(3) MR PAUL FRYATT (4) MR MALCOLM WOOD 
(5) MR MARTYN WOODS	

CONCRETE REPAIRS LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR PETER GROBEL
(of Counsel)
Messrs O H Parsons & Partners
Solicitors
3rd Floor
Sovereign House
212-224 Shaftesbury Avenue
London
WC2H 8PR	

	JUDGE BYRT QC:	This is a preliminary hearing in an appeal from a decision promulgated on 16th December 1998 by the Chairman of Employment Tribunal sitting alone at Ashford, Kent. The applicants, five in number, had claimed that there was an unlawful deduction from their wages and the tribunal Chairman held that claim failed.

	The points the appellants would now wish to take are set out in the extensive Notice of Appeal drafted by Counsel. Essentially, they raise issues of estoppel and public policy. Quite shortly, the factual basis of those claims is as follows: negotiations took place between the trade unions and the employers for a three-year working rule agreement. The negotiations were undertaken by both sides in a bona fide way, but only after an agreement had been completed, the employers decided that, as a negotiating body, they were not validly constituted. As a result they determined that the agreement was not binding on them. It is a question raised by the appellants as to whether the employers are estopped from saying just that, and as a matter of public policy as to whether such a decision should be allowed.

	We take the view that this matter should be explored before a full hearing of this tribunal. We have also raised the issue as to whether the point of law raised had been argued in the tribunal below. Mr Grobel, who appears here on behalf of the appellants, says this it was not, but that it was a point of law of a sufficient substance that it ought to be dealt with at this tribunal, and we agree.

	Accordingly, we give leave for this matter to go forward to a full hearing on the basis of the Notice of Appeal drafted by Mr Grobel.

	Mr Grobel has also applied that this matter should be consolidated with another case raising a similar point. We understand that there has already been a ruling on this aspect by the Registrar, but in that we anticipate the substantive point of law to be determined by this tribunal will be of some importance, we think that the matter should be reconsidered by the President at a prehearing review. That occasion would also afford the respondents the opportunity of asking for any Notes of Evidence they think are necessary for the assistance of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Accordingly, we give a direction that there should be such a prehearing review.