Appeal No.	 EAT/716/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 October 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
MR T C THOMAS CBE

RAYMOND WOOD THERMALIGHT WINDOWS LTD	APPELLANT

MR J R LEGG	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

No appearance by the Appellant		

MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:
1	By way of IT1 dated 6 January 1999, Mr Legg made a complaint seeking a redundancy payment from his former employers, the respondents Raymond Wood Thermalight Windows Ltd.  That complaint was resisted with a restrained indignation by the respondents, with a particular point arising as to the circumstances in which Mr Legg had been provided by them with a letter which arguably suggested that he had been dismissed for redundancy.  

2	In the event this came before an Employment Tribunal on the 15 March 1999, unhappily the respondents did not attend.  In the result the unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that Appellant had been made redundant and was therefore to be awarded a redundancy payment for £475.00.  With a similar level of restrained indignation the respondents have appealed against that decision to this Tribunal.  This matter has thus come before us this morning, by way of preliminary hearing.  There is a letter before us from the respondents intimating that due to business pressures upon the company, they are unable to be here but asking us to give proper consideration to that which they raise by way of a notice of appeal and some correspondence.  

3	It was when perusing the correspondence that this Tribunal alighted upon a letter sent by Mr McGuinness (apparently an accountant for the respondents), to a firm of solicitors, acting for Mr Legg.  The letter reads as follows:

“I have checked into the circumstances of your clients termination of employment and it has been confirmed to me that the letter dated 16 January 1998 was issued at his own request. 

A number of our current employees who moved to this address and were former colleagues of Mr Legg have attested to me that Mr Legg was also asked to come, but he declined.

Our Managing Director, Bill Forsyth, tells me that work is still available for him here if he wants to join us.  Does this represent a way forward?”.

4	Turning from this material back to the extended reasons, we are unable to discern this correspondence having any apparent impact upon the Tribunal below, and a question is obviously raised as to whether it was ever before them.  This in our judgement raises an issue that ought to be the subject of an inter-parties hearing.  That being the case, we adjourn this matter for such hearing so that this Tribunal may look further into the matter.

5	We would emphasise that this Tribunal for this inter-parties hearing at least, the present appellants (the former respondents) would do well to attend, whether in person or, for preference, by way of a solicitor or Counsel.  With representation there must be inevitably a better chance that their arguments can be fully developed to proper effect.  

6	Listing Category: C.  Length: 2 hours.