Appeal No. EAT/412/94

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 27 September 1994

	Before

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HICKS QC

	MR J C RAMSAY

	MISS A MADDOCKS OBE

MR W BUTLER	APPELLANT

KILROY PIPELINE SERVICES LTD	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING 
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR
REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

	JUDGE HICKS:  Mr Butler appeals against one aspect of the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, which found in his favour that he was unfairly dismissed but in the assessment of compensation referred to the fact that he had been receiving sickness benefit from the date of cessation of his employment and, to put it briefly, did not allow loss of earnings during the period for which he was in receipt of sickness benefit.

	We have decided to order that this Appeal proceed to a full hearing.  When making such an order it is not the practice of this Tribunal to give reasons, and we do not propose to give reasons in any general terms, but it may be helpful to the Appellant simply to refer to one short matter for the clarification of his own understanding of the legislation.  It is one of his complaints that he has read in the press of applications before industrial tribunals in which sums of money have been awarded for injury to feelings, and in particular he has written to us with press cuttings showing that a lady applicant was awarded a sum of money under that head.  We just wish to make it plain - because Mr Butler asks whether there is one law for men and one for women - we wish to make it plain that that is not the situation, but it is time that there is one law for cases under the Sex Discrimination Act, such as that in the press cutting; and that different principles apply to the assessment of compensation under the legislation in relation to unfair dismissal, which is the legislation under which he applied and under which his compensation fell to be assessed.
  
	With that comment and without any expression of view about the merits of the appeal itself, other than that we consider it fit to go for a full hearing, we order that it shall do so.