Appeal No.	 EAT/673/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 24 October 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC
MS G MILLS
MR K M YOUNG CBE

(1) MR A M SCOTT (2) MR P ALDRIDGE (3) MRS R S ALDRIDGE	APPELLANTS

(1) YORKSHIRE MINERS WELFARE CONVALESCENT HOMES 	RESPONDENTS
(2) THE NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS (YORKSHIRE) AREA	

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR C BOURNE
(of Counsel)
Messrs Thompsons
Solicitors
17 Wellington Street
Leeds
LS1 4DL	

	JUDGE REID QC:		This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by the applicants below, Mr Scott and Mr and Mrs Aldridge, against a decision of an Employment Tribunal held at Leeds on 30th March 2000. By unanimous decision of the tribunal, they held, first, Mr Scott had continuity of employment from the 1st April 1996 with the first respondent, as to that, there is no issue on the appeal, of course; secondly, there was no transfer from first respondent’s undertaking at Low Hall, Scalby to the second respondent; and thirdly, the dismissals of the applicants were fair, and were for redundancy.

1.	The essence of the complaint in this case relates to the finding that there was no transfer of the undertaking at Low Hall, Scalby, from the first respondent to the second respondent.

2.	The grounds of appeal, in brief, are that the tribunal erred in law in failing to make findings of fact which were disputed between the parties but which were essential for proper understanding of the economic activity being carried out at Low Hall before and after the transfer; and that the tribunal also made certain findings of fact which were contrary to the evidence that was put before it.

3.	The decision in its extended form is notable for its brevity. In particular, one area where we found a problem was a statement that no evidence was produced in relation to the use by the second respondent of Low Hall after the termination of the employment of the applicants as a convalescent home. That appears on the face of it to be inaccurate. The position was that Mr Scott was employed as primarily a cook and Mr and Mrs Aldridge as persons with day to day control of the premises, and after the take-over Mr and Mrs Aldridge remained at the premises from June, when the take-over, if such it was, took place, until October, which was the end of the season for the use of Low Hall. We are told that there was evidence that after 4th June, while Mr and Mrs Aldridge were there, that matters carried on as before, that they were people who had been in charge of the property for a very considerable period and that they knew, amongst other things, the regular clientele who came to convalesce at Low Hall. 

4.	Now, it may be that that evidence was not accepted. It may be that it simply, somewhere along the line, slipped the minds of the tribunal. It may be that it was accepted but was not felt to go far enough. On the face of the decision however, it does appear to us that there is room for real argument as to whether or not the tribunal erred in law or reached a decision which was perverse by apparently ignoring evidence which was placed before it and by failing to make findings about that evidence one way or the other.

5.	In those circumstances, it seems to us that the less we say now the better. The matter should go for a full hearing. In order that that full hearing can be properly conducted, we take the view that that hearing should have the benefit of the Chairman’s Notes of Evidence of Mr Scott, Mr and Mrs Aldridge and the one person called on behalf of the second respondent and who would speak for a short period after the transition, Mr Hardman. In those circumstances, what we propose to do is make an order in those terms.

6.	The case to be listed for ½ a day, Category C.