Appeal No.	EAT/1027/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 15 December 2000

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BELL
MS G MILLS
MR J C SHRIGLEY

MRS C A WILLIS	APPELLANT

MR AND MRS NANKOO t/a CLIFTON REST HOME	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR PAUL ROSE
(of Counsel)
Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme	

	MR JUSTICE BELL:	This is a preliminary hearing of Mrs Willis’ appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal held at Birmingham on 31st March and 22nd May 2000. The decision being that, firstly, the respondents had made an unlawful deduction from her wages and were ordered to pay her the agreed amount of the deduction of £416.43, and, secondly, her complaint of constructive unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. There was no problem with the first part of the decision. The sum of £416.63 was agreed between the parties in the course of the Employment Tribunal hearing. It is the second of the limb of the decision which Mrs Willis seeks to challenge upon this appeal.

1.	Mrs Willis’ grounds of appeal were home grown. This morning Mrs Willis has had the very considerable advantage of being represented by Mr Paul Rose, to whom we are grateful, under auspices of ELAAS. Mr Rose conceded straightaway that the homegrown grounds do not raise a point of law which could support a successful appeal. 

2.	On the face of the Employment Tribunal’s decision it decided the matters it had to decide in a way which it was entitled to do on the evidence before it and it was entitled to reach the conclusion which it did in respect of the claim of constructive unfair dismissal. 

3.	However, Mr Rose tells us that he has been instructed by Mrs Willis that quite apart from the allegations of harassment by her employer which are mentioned and decided upon in the decision of the Employment Tribunal and its extended reasons, she put a case before the Employment Tribunal of harassing in the form of bullying, shouting and overburdening her with work which, she contended, was what led to her resignation. She says that those allegations appeared in the witness statement which she put before the Employment Tribunal.

4.	We do not have a copy of the witness statement. Mr Rose does not have a copy. Mrs Willis has not brought a copy to this tribunal today. But Mr Rose points to the third and fourth paragraphs of Box 11 of Mrs Willis’ form IT1 application which reads:

“As a result of the continual intimidation from the Respondents towards myself I was becoming increasingly distressed. The combination of the Respondents hostility and my distress was upsetting the elderly residents in my care.
Eventually my health was adversely affected and I was forced to resign in November 1999.”

	Mr Rose accepts that that part of IT1 is lacking in particulars but it does, he is able to suggest, indicate that there might have been more to Mrs Willis’ complaint than the specific matters which are covered in the tribunal’s extended reasons. If Mrs Willis did raise matters of bullying, shouting and overburdening with work, then those matters are not canvassed or dealt with in the Employment Tribunal’s decision and extended reasons. If they were raised it would follow, Mr Rose argues, that the tribunal failed to deal with a material, indeed the most material, part of Mrs Willis’ case.

5.	I think we can fairly say that we are somewhat sceptical about the matters which have been put before us this morning. We think the fairest course to take is to adjourn this preliminary hearing and to direct that Mrs Willis file evidence in the form of a sworn affidavit or signed witness statement speaking to the matters which Mr Rose has put before us this morning and producing the witness statement to which he has referred. We direct that once that material is available it be sent to the members of the Employment Tribunal for their comments and once their comments are available this matter be relisted for a further preliminary hearing. A copy of this judgment should also be sent to the members of the Employment Tribunal. 

6.	If there is any merit in the point which Mr Rose has canvassed before us, it must find its way into a proper Notice of Appeal. We do not think it right to give leave to amend the Notice of Appeal at this stage on the material before us, but we would be grateful if Mr Rose felt able to draft a proposed amendment on the basis of the information which he has presently been given by Mrs Willis. That should be filed with the court and sent also to the members of the Employment Tribunal.