Appeal No.	 EAT/1340/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 1 February 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON
MR D CHADWICK
MS B SWITZER

CHRONOS RICHARDSON LTD	APPELLANT

MR W K WATSON	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	TOM LINDEN
(OF COUNSEL) 
INSTRUCTED BY:
MS LUCY ATHERTON
EEF
SOLICITOR
BROADWAY HOUSE
TOTHILL STREET
LONDON
SW1H 9NQ	

JUDGE WILSON:-

1.	This has been the preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by the company which was the Respondent before the Employment Tribunal.  The Employment Tribunal was dealing with a redundancy dismissal and the Applicant was asserting that there was no consultation or notification of an impending redundancy position, he claimed that he was presented with a fait acomplis at a 10 minute interview where there was no room for discussion about the basis of the selection.

2.	The Respondent admitted that there had been a redundancy situation but asserted that the procedures were properly followed and that the Applicant had not appealed against his selection when he was informed of it.  The Employment Tribunal found that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed.   That decision was a majority decision and the reasons for it were set out in paragraphs 13-15 of the decision.  The Employment Tribunal went on to assess compensation at £12,000.  The minority view of the Chairman was set out in paragraph 16 of the decision.  

3.	Having considered Mr Linden’s skeleton argument which he has amplified before us today, we are satisfied that the matter should proceed to a full hearing on full argument concerning one question as to liability and one question as to quantum.  We phrase the issues as follows:

(1)	Whether the majority of the Employment Tribunal erred in law in substituting their own view about suitable criteria for selection and the adequacy of consultation in the procedure adopted;
(2)	Whether in quantifying compensation the Employment Tribunal erred in law in not taking into consideration the principles in Polkey v E A Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR page 42.

4.	We consider that the matter should be categorised C with a time estimate of two hours