[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hughes v London Underground Ltd [1996] UKEAT 1224_95_2601 (26 January 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1224_95_2601.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1224_95_2601

[New search] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1224_95_2601

Appeal No. EAT/1224/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 26 January 1996

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN

MR R TODD

MISS A MACKIE OBE

---

MR P G HUGHES          APPELLANT

LONDON UNDERGROUND LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON


 


JUDGE ALTMAN: This matter comes before us by way of preliminary hearing on the appeal of the Applicant from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London North on 7 August 1995.

The preliminary issue that falls for consideration is whether the Applicant can show that there are points that he wishes to raise before the full Appeal Tribunal which can be categorised as points of law. We find that that appeal does disclose arguable points of law and it will now proceed to a full hearing. We have listened very carefully to what the Applicant has said and because he appears in person we are going to depart from the normal practice of saying nothing at this stage. Instead we identify one or two of the issues upon which we have formed no opinion one way or the other but which seem to emerge from the arguments that have been addressed. This is not to be regarded as a comprehensive statement of the points of law which can be raised.

(1) Did the Tribunal heed the question as to whether the procedure adopted by the Respondents was incorporated in the Applicant's contract of employment through union agreement;

(2) Did the Tribunal consider the argument of the Applicant that he should not have been dismissed for certified sickness absence in the context of the procedure of the Respondents; did the Tribunal address the fundamental question which arises as to whether a procedure which precludes the employer from distinguishing conduct and capability is within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer;

(3) Should the letter dated 30 June 1995 from the Employee Relations Manager of the Respondents to the Applicant be admitted in evidence before the EAT as it postdates the date of the Tribunal decision;

(4) Whether, in the light of that evidence or otherwise, the Tribunal erred in law in accepting the factual absences asserted by the Respondents;

(5) Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider whether the so-called ten per cent rule was part of his contract of employment and

(6) Whether the Tribunal erred in limiting the Respondents' duty to act within the range of reasonable responses to the question whether or not they had followed their own procedure without exercising discretion.

Those are some of the matters that seem to us to arise on appeal. We therefore direct as follows.

This matter will be listed for hearing for a full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal for one day. Secondly, we direct that skeleton arguments in support of the application be furnished within six weeks of the seal date of the Judgment. Thirdly, we give leave to the Applicant/Appellant to furnish within 21 days of the seal date of the Judgment amended grounds of appeal setting out the points which, as a matter of law, he seeks to argue. Fourthly, we dispense with the notes of evidence from the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal.