Appeal No.	 EAT/949/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 3 November 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR B M WARMAN

MR R SCOTT	APPELLANT

HEDON SALADS LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS	

MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:
1	This matter has been listed before us by way of preliminary hearing.  It is our task to decide whether this matter should go forward for an inter-partes hearing, on the basis that there is a point arising out of the decision, which is arguable and which merits further consideration.

2	We do not have the presence here this morning of the appellant, Mr Ray Scott.   But he has provided a well drafted skeleton argument dated 29 October 1999.  Further he has indicated that he was not intending to be present this morning, but asked us to deal with this part of the appeal in his absence.  

3	Having had the advantage of reading the skeleton argument, we are satisfied that this is a matter that should adjourned for an inter-partes hearing.  The essential point that we raise for consideration of this Tribunal at that hearing, relates to paragraph 13, and the finding by the Tribunal that the relevant reason for the dismissal was ‘conduct’.  

4	We are concerned that thereafter there does not appear to be any careful examination of the range of options open to the reasonable employer, confronted by a finding of conduct, as distinct from gross misconduct, and in this context we draw attention to paragraph 6 of the skeleton argument.  The point there is not addressed at all by the Tribunal, and it is plainly one that this Tribunal will need some assistance with.  

5	Turning then to our directions, this is a half day case and it is Category C.  We further direct that there be an exchange of skeleton arguments 14 days before the inter-partes hearing.