Appeal No.	 EAT/43/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 14 April 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR L D COWAN
MR P R A JACQUES CBE

MRS AUDREY MARGARET CLARK	APPELLANT

WATFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Mr Levinson
(of Counsel)
Appearing under the 
Employment Law 
Appeal Advice Scheme	

	JUDGE JOHN BYRT:	This is a case which has caused us a measure of concern and we think there is an arguable case to go through to a Full Hearing.  It is the Appellant’s case that, as is testified by her witness statement, that there was plenty of work that she could have been doing as opposed to being left idle as a telephonist.  

	The Employment Tribunal in their decision, para 9, suggest that the Applicant, now the Appellant, had accepted that there was no work and if there was no work that none could be created.  There is an obvious conflict here between what she said in her witness statement, what she said in evidence and what the Tribunal found.  In view of the fact that the Respondents did not call evidence at all to witness what the true position was we think that this matter should be further explored.  In order to help this Tribunal consider the matter when the matter comes back before it again, we think it would be helpful if the Chairman of the Tribunal was asked to set out the extracts of the evidence of Mrs Clark in which she accepted there was no work for her to do and that there was none which the Respondents could have made available for her.  These excerpts will relate to the findings of fact by the Tribunal in para 9.  They would seem to be in such apparent conflict with what the Applicant says in her witness statement.