Appeal No. EAT/1382/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 1 May 2001

Before
HER HONOUR JUDGE A WAKEFIELD
MISS C HOLROYD
MR R THOMSON

MR I POLAT	APPELLANT

COSTA COFFEE LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR J HORAN
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Crawley Citizens Advice Bureau
The Tree
103 High Street
Crawley
West Sussex RH10 1DD	

JUDGE A WAKEFIELD

1	This is an ex-parte preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr I Polat against a Decision of an Employment Tribunal held at Brighton by which his application relating to unfair dismissal was dismissed.  The hearing of the application took place over two days in July and August 2000 and the Decision was given on 25 September 2000.  

2	The first ground of appeal raised appears to us to merit a full hearing.  It arises from an assertion that Mr Moore, an employee of the Respondent and the one who had conducted the disciplinary hearing when the decision to dismiss had been reached, was also present throughout the appeal hearing, including after the Appellant had left and Mr Ashmore, who conducted the appeal hearing, was reaching his decision.  

3	The Employment Tribunal Decision is silent as to this.  We do not therefore know if it was raised before them or not or, if it was, what view they took.  Since the Employment Tribunal held that the original decision to dismiss was procedurally flawed but that the appeal hearing had rectified those flaws, it is clearly relevant that Mr Moore may have been present during the deliberations concerning, and possibly also contributing to, the appeal Decision.  

4	We also consider that the matter should proceed to a full hearing on the linked question of whether the Employment Tribunal were wrong in law to fail to consider, if indeed it were raised before them, any bias of Mr Moore by reason of his having been involved in dismissing relatives of the Appellant on a prior occasion.  Again the Employment Tribunal Decision is silent as to this.  The appeal will therefore proceed on the first and third subparagraphs of paragraph 6 of the Notice of Appeal.  

5	As to the second of the two subparagraphs in paragraph 6 of that Notice, we find that there was no error in the finding of the Employment Tribunal in that, as is asserted, it:
 “failed to consider whether the decision to dismiss was reasonable in the circumstances and whether a different disciplinary sanction should have been imposed, bearing in mind that other employees had been treated differently, in similar circumstances”

 to the Appellant.  We are satisfied that this was properly considered by the Employment Tribunal and that no error of law was made.  

6	In order for this Tribunal to assess the matters fully at a hearing of the appeal, it will be necessary to obtain the Chairman’s Notes of Evidence, relating both to the conduct of the appeal hearing and as to any prior dealings by Mr Moore with the Appellant’s relations.  If the notes made by Ms Sarah Moakes of the appeal hearing were before the Employment Tribunal, they should also be made available at the hearing before this Tribunal.  

Category C, Skeleton Arguments to be filed with the Tribunal and exchanged not later than 14 days prior to the hearing of the appeal.