[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Burke v. Essilor Ltd [2000] UKEAT 605_00_1610 (16 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/605_00_1610.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 605_00_1610, [2000] UKEAT 605__1610

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR MARC JONES (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal and Advice Scheme


 


MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC

1. We consider that there are arguable grounds in paragraph 2 of the amended grounds of appeal dated 28 May 2000, namely whether the Tribunal addressed and recorded sufficient findings on relevant evidence which appears to have been put before them, suggesting the possibility that Mr Burke had been treated in a less favourable manner than other employees, without specifically addressing who the proper comparators were, and in what way it could be said that he had not been treated any worse than other employees, (for example, the other employee who had let the line stop). We were also impressed by the documents that were put in front of us which appear to suggest that the Tribunal had misdirected themselves in holding that, on the question of a holiday request, it had been Mr Burke's holiday request that had come in second rather than first.
2. On the basis of the documents that Mr Burke has put in before us, we are satisfied that there is something for the full Tribunal to consider on that aspect of it. What we would like you to address us on though is whether there is any really arguable ground of law for saying that the Tribunal misdirected themselves or erred in law in failure to address the question of victimisation, as a separate head of discrimination, as distinct from the areas of direct discrimination which were in evidence before them.

[The Court heard argument on this issue.]

3. Yes, Mr Jones and Mr Burke. Although we are bound to say, on the documents that we have been shown this morning, we do not think this is the strongest case of discrimination by way of victimisation that might be imagined, we think there is a sufficient point raised by the sequence of the dates in June of 1999, and Mr Burke having clearly raised the question of direct discrimination at the first of those meetings on 4 June, to warrant us directing that this should go forward for a full hearing of the Appeal Tribunal to consider the question of whether there was an error on the part of the Tribunal in not addressing victimisation, as well as the other issues on the facts that have been identified.
4. Now, we have got in front of us Amended Grounds of Appeal signed by Mr Burke on 28 May, subject to any submissions you have got to make, we would propose to direct, or to give liberty for the original Grounds of Appeal which were far too diffuse to be amended by substituting those as the Grounds of Appeal, and directing that the case should go forward for a full hearing on those amended grounds 1 and 2 dated 28 May 2000.

[Discussion of the amended Grounds of Appeal]

5. Thank you, if when it gets to preparing for the full hearing, it is obvious that there is some additional point, a genuine point of law that needs to be raised to supplement A, B and C in head 2 on the way the Tribunal dealt with the facts, well then a further application can be made, if necessary, for another amendment, but I would hope that it will not be necessary.
6. So we will direct a full hearing on the grounds in the Amended Notice of Appeal dated 28 May signed by Mr Burke. We will give leave for the Notice of Appeal to be amended by substituting those for the original grounds, and we direct that an amended, tidied up Notice of Appeal should be lodged within 14 days so that there is no doubt what the substance of the Appeal is about.
7. The appeal is to be set down in category C, listing category for the full hearing. Length of hearing - three to four hours, these things are not a totally exact science, and then we will direct production of the Chairman's Notes of Evidence.
8. We are concerned to restrict the request if possible but on the other hand, you have shown us one or two aspects where it does appear rather puzzling why the Tribunal reached the conclusions they did on the face of the evidence. We think it is better if the full Tribunal should have the benefit of the full Chairman's Notes.
9. The only other direction we give is that Skeleton Arguments should be lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal office and exchanged between the parties not later than 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing.