Appeal No.	 EAT/977/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 6 February 2001

Before
MISS RECORDER SLADE QC
MR J HOUGHAM CBE
MS B SWITZER

(1)	MR T WILDGOOSE (2) MRS Y M SANDERSON 
(3) MR S W O'HANRAHAN (4) MRS L OXBY	APPELLANTS

RAMPTON HOSPITAL AUTHORITY	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR K McNERNEY
(Representative)
Royal College of Nursing
Legal Department - Leeds Office
Raven House
81 Clarendon Road
Leeds LS2 9PJ

MISS RECORDER SLADE QC:	

1	This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Wildgoose and Others against the decision of an Employment Tribunal on a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages.  The appeal concerns the proper construction of Section 27 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and, in particular, Section 27(1) and Section 27(2)(b).

2	What is at issue here is whether sums allegedly due in respect of travelling expenses to enable the Appellants to get to and from work are excluded from the definition of ‘wages’ by Section 27(2)(b).  The point taken on the appeal is that such payments do not constitute expenses incurred by the worker in carrying out his employment because they constitute payment in respect of expenses enabling the worker to go to and away from employment.  A short point.

3	The Tribunal in paragraph 9 of its decision held that:

“I do not think that it is helpful to try and analyse the words [referring to Section 27] so as to try and draw a distinction between expenses involved in getting to work and expenses involved in actually working.”

4	In our view it is arguable, indeed strongly arguable, that a proper consideration of Section 27 requires just such an exercise to be undertaken.  We also consider it arguable that the payments at issue do not fall within the exclusion in Section 27(2)(b).

5	Accordingly, we consider that this case should go forward to a full hearing.