[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Rolls Royce Plc (t/a Mitchell Bearings) v. Stanley Codling [2001] UKEAT 926_00_0702 (7 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/926_00_0702.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 926__702, [2001] UKEAT 926_00_0702

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T LINDEN (of Counsel) Instructed By: Mr R Linskell Engineering Employers Federation Broadway House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NQ


 


MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC:

1. In this appeal Rolls Royce Plc t/a Mitchell Bearings seeks to have set aside, as erroneous in law, the decision of the Newcastle Employment Tribunal set out in Extended Reasons sent to the parties on 9 June 2000 extending to 18 pages, after a hearing lasting two days in May 2000.
2. The complaint to the Tribunal was by Mr Stanley Codling that he had been unfairly selected for redundancy by the employer because of his trade union activities. The Tribunal accepted that that had been the case and, therefore, held him to have been unfairly dismissed when his employment was brought to an end by reason of redundancy on 13 January 1999.
3. The Tribunal's decision that he had been unfairly selected for redundancy because of his union activities depended almost wholly on an inference the Tribunal thought it right to draw from the fact that he was an extremely active trade unionist (as was admitted); from the history leading up to the announcement of the redundancies and the selection process employed; and from the fact that one of the managers involved in the assessment process, a Mr Lummis, whom Mr Codling had contended was an unsuitable person to carry out the assessment, was not called to give evidence before the Tribunal.
4. Both the Notice of Appeal by the employers and the Tribunal's Extended Reasons go into the facts at considerable length, but it is not necessary for us to do any more today than say that we are satisfied that the Notice of Appeal raises questions which need to be looked at further by this Employment Appeal Tribunal at a full hearing which we accordingly direct.
5. The main issues appear to us to focus on the process by which the Tribunal drew the inference they did, in particular, first, whether that was a proper inference for a reasonable Tribunal to draw having regard to the evidence before them and second, whether the Tribunal's reasons for doing so are adequately explained in the Extended Reasons they gave.
6. Accordingly, we direct that this be set down for a full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, listing Category C, estimated length of hearing one day. Skeleton Arguments should be exchanged between the parties and lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal office not later than 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
7. We also envisage that we shall have to give some directions as to the production of the Chairman's Notes of, at any rate, parts of the evidence.
[The Court heard Counsel on the directions to be given].
8. We direct that the Chairman be asked to produce his notes of the oral evidence, cross-examination and any re-examination of:

(1) Mr Cole, about the previous assessment in which he participated in April 1998;

(2) Mr Macallan, about (i) that assessment, (ii) the second assessment process in January 1999 which led to the Applicant's dismissal; and (iii) the availability of alternative employment at the time of Mr Codling's dismissal in January 1999;

(3) Mr Stanley's evidence about his previous knowledge of the Applicant and his participation in the assessment process in January 1999;

(4) Mr Bowman, about the availability of alternative employment at the time of Mr Codling's dismissal; and

(5) Mr Codling's own evidence about the list for redundancies which was prepared and used in January 1999.

9. We express the hope that it will be possible to limit the request to the Chairman to produce his Notes of Evidence to those specific items. If the parties find it impracticable to conduct the appeal without a further request to the Chairman, then a further interlocutory application can be made.