Appeal No. EAT/1291/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 29 April 2002

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID
MR B GIBBS
MRS J M MATTHIAS

UNITED CARE HOMES LIMITED	APPELLANT

MISS R M BENNETT	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR C GASKILL
United Care Homes Limited
Bracton Close
11 Hill Waye
Gerrards Cross
Buckinghamshire
SL9 8BJ	

JUDGE J R REID:
1.	This is an appeal by United Care Homes Limited who were represented below by Mr Bhatti, who is a director of the company, against a decision of an Employment Tribunal held at London (South) on 9 and 29 May last year.  The decision was sent to the parties on 6 July and extended reasons for the decision were sent to the parties on 14 September.  

2.	By the decision, so far as relevant, the Tribunal held that the employer, United Care Homes, had to honour pension arrangements that were in place with the Respondent, Miss Bennett’s previous employers, whose business was taken over.  That term of her employment was effective from 11 November 1999 and in consequence of that the employer had to contribute £30 per month to the Applicant’s pension, including making good the arrears.  Miss Bennett had been employed by the Stanstead Children’s Home from 1997 as a Deputy Manager, the then proprietor being a Mrs Miller, who sold the business to United Care Homes Limited with effect from 5 November 1999.  

3.	It is not, it appears, in dispute that Miss Bennett was making payments to a pension plan, or that the way in which the payments were made was that sums were deducted from her gross pay and sent by the employer to the relevant pension company.  The issue was whether the sums that were sent were funded in part by the employer and part by the employee or whether they were funded in their totality by the employee.  The Tribunal held very briefly at paragraph 19 of their extended reasons that (I quote from paragraph 19)

“The Tribunal was satisfied that the arrangements were honoured and the Mrs Miller contributed £30.00 per month in compliance with this term, the Applicant contributing £37.00 per month.  We find no evidence to support the Respondent’s contention that it is not bound by this term.  The Tribunal therefore confirms this term of the contract and we find that it is effective from 11 November 1999, that being the date the contract was signed.  Accordingly the Respondent is ordered to contribute £30.00 per month to the Applicant’s pension, and to make good all payments owed.”

4.	That really is the totality of the findings of fact.  The Tribunal does not explain why it took that view of the facts.  There was a considerable body of written material before the Tribunal in the form of pay records, correspondence with the insurance company and other matters.  But on the face of it, that documentation might have led a Tribunal to take the view that although the money was deducted from the Respondent’s, that is to say Miss Bennett’s pay,  the whole of it came out of her pocket rather than in part coming from her pocket and the balance being a contribution from the employer.  

5.	We take the view that it is arguable that the decision of the Employment Tribunal falls foul of the well-know rule in Meek v. Birmingham in that it is not possible for the Appellant to see why it was that it lost and we further take the view that it may be arguable, having regard to the totality of the documentation, that the decision to which the Tribunal came was one which might properly be regarded as perverse.  Whether or not the decision is open to either or both of those criticisms is of course not a matter for us.  It is a matter which will have to be determined at a full hearing.  

6.	In order to assist the Appeal Tribunal at the full hearing, it seems to us that it would be appropriate to have the chairman’s note of oral evidence, so far as it related to the pension issue only.  We note that the decision splits out very carefully the pension issue from another issue as to wages which was before the Employment Tribunal and we hope that it will be possible for the chairman to save himself some labour by being able to select only those parts of his note of the oral evidence which relates to the pension issue.  

7.	We will direct that an amended notice of appeal to raise the two issues that we have indicated and to dispose of what appears to be lengthy argument of fact should be lodged within 14 days and we regard this as being a category C case with an estimate of half a day.