Appeal No.	 EAT/34/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 6 March 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D CHADWICK
MRS P TURNER OBE

MRS C JONES	APPELLANT

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR JONES
APPELLANT'S HUSBAND	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:  The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a personal secretary at its Central Medical Establishment between March 1992 and September 1995.  On 8 March 1996 she presented a complaint of harassment, which was treated as a claim of sex discrimination and permitted to proceed, notwithstanding its being presented outside the ordinary three-month time limit.

	The nub of her complaint related to an appraisal report presented to her on 5 December 1995 by Dr Murray, to whom she worked as personal secretary, and the office manager, Flight Lieutenant Griffiths.  She took exception to being downgraded as to her promotion prospects from 3 to 4 on the performance scale.  Subsequently she raised a form of grievance which included the issue of harassment against some 10 people, male and female.

	The complaint came on for a substantive hearing before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (North) (Chairman:  Mr D H Roose) on 23 July 1997.  For the extended reasons promulgated on 21 August 1997 the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.  Against that decision the Appellant now appeals.

	The grounds of appeal fall into two parts.  Allegations of bias against the Tribunal and an attempt to re-open factual issues determined by the Tribunal under the general heading of perversity.

	As to the first, the complaint is that the evidence of the Appellant and her witness, a former colleague, was dismissed by the Tribunal and the evidence of Mr Griffiths accepted.  However, that is the fact-finding function of Industrial Tribunals.  We can see no arguable case for an appearance of bias.

	As to the second, it is said that the Appellant’s Counsel below failed to pick up a point on Mr Griffiths’ statement which undermined his oral evidence and the Tribunal also missed the point.  That is not a matter which will ground an appeal on point of law to this Employment Appeal Tribunal.  Nor, indeed, do the other matters which are raised by the Appellant on paper in a skeleton argument and by her husband, Mr Jones, in oral submission before us.

	We have considered the Industrial Tribunal’s findings and reasoning and we can see no arguable case of perversity to go to a full appeal hearing.  

	In these circumstances at this preliminary stage we must dismiss this appeal.