Appeal No.	 EAT/571/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 May 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR D J JENKINS MBE
MR A E R MANNERS

MR E ALIGA	APPELLANT

FORTE HOTELS PLC	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON	
For the Respondents	MR P BREWER
(Representative)
Cumberland Hotel
Marble Arch
London
W1A 4RF	

	JUDGE LEVY QC:   We have before us an interlocutory appeal by Mr Aliga in proceedings which he has brought in the Industrial Tribunal in which the respondent is Forte Hotels PLC [“the Company”] in the following circumstances.

	On 10th January 1997 Mr Aliga presented an application to an Industrial Tribunal claiming (in Box 1) racial discrimination and a claim under the Equal Pay Act 1970. His particulars suggested that he had been sacked because of his colour, and showed that his employment was from 24th August 1996 to 8th November 1996. 

	The Company put in a Notice of Appearance which is apparently undated, but shows that the employment began on 23rd August 1996 and ended on 24th September 1996. It said that Mr Aliga was dismissed because his conduct was unsatisfactory in that he failed to satisfactorily complete a one month probationary period of employment. The Company took the point that the complaint was presented out of time, and sought a decision on that preliminary issue. 

	On 21st April 1997 that preliminary issue came before an Industrial Tribunal at London (South) where the Chairman, Mr Peters, sat alone. He ruled that the complaint for unlawful discrimination was not presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning when the act complained of was done and in all the circumstances of the case it was not just and equitable for the tribunal nevertheless to consider a complaint made out of time. As a consequence the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. The decision said that it did not affect Mr Aliga’s complaint relating to equal pay.

	We understand from Mr Aliga who has told us today that on 21st April a date was fixed for the hearing of the complaint relating to equal pay, and indeed we have in our papers directions regarding that complaint which is dated 29th April 1997 giving normal orders so that the parties could prepare for the hearing on 2nd June 1997.

	The reasons for the decision were sent to the parties on 29th April 1997. 

	The next day Mr Aliga wrote a letter to the Industrial Tribunal, a copy of which we have been handed this morning. It is dated 30th April 1997; he asked the tribunal to issue:

“... a stay of execution against orders made by Mr Peter’s in my Equal Pay case.”

He gave three reasons. The first was because he was sitting exams in the May and his last papers would be on 31st May. The second was because he wished to appeal against Mr Peter’s refusal to look into the race discrimination case; the third was that he had made a request to the Equal Opportunities Commission for assistance and was awaiting their reply.

	On 2nd May 1997 the Industrial Tribunal replied to Mr Aliga in these terms:

“1.	I acknowledge your letter of 30 April in which you ask for a postponement of the hearing of this case.
2.	The Chairman has considered all you say and has balanced that against the desirability of bringing this case to a hearing without delay. Your request for a postponement is refused for the following reason(s):
(1) The date of the hearing was agreed before it was fixed. In that situation a postponement is not normally granted save in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. The circumstances in this case are neither.
(2) The fact that you intend to appeal does not affect the equal pay aspect of your case.
(3) The Chairman is not willing to delay the hearing pending a response from the Equal Opportunities Commission.”

From that Mr Aliga, appealed by a Notice of Appeal dated 9th May 1997, and the Notice of Appeal states that he appeals from the orders made on 21st April 1997 and 2nd May 1997 that the hearing should take place on 2nd June 1997, and the order which he says was made on 21st April 1997 that the Company should prepare evidence for him.

	We should state that we have given papers which show that Mr Aliga has one examination on 31st May 1997, which is scheduled to take three hours; his other examinations are now behind him. 

	In our judgment, the discretion which was exercised by the Chairman as shown in the letter of 2nd May, cannot be successfully challenged in this Court. The date, as the Chairman said in his letter, was agreed before it was fixed and the reasons given by the Chairman for not changing it seem to us to be correct. The other items which are mentioned in judgment also seem to be matters which the Chairman could properly take into account when he came to exercise his discretion.

	This Court is unhappy about taking cases out of the list of a busy Industrial Tribunal at short notice, unless real urgency or compelling reasons are shown. In this case, we have obvious sympathy for Mr Aliga, who will have to prepare for this case at the same time as he prepares for his final examination, but the sooner he has his day in Court, we feel the better this would be for him and the other parties to the case.

	The real point in Mr Aliga’s appeal is that the Chairman’s discretion has been wrongly exercised. We cannot accept his submission that this is so. and there is no other reason for this Court to interfere with his decision. We therefore dismiss this appeal.