Appeal No.	 EAT/187/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 May 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAROLD WILSON
MR R SANDERSON OBE
MR J A SCOULLER

MR R RAVAL	APPELLANT

THE LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR C CIUMEI
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Mr T Wishart
Legal Officer
UNISON
1 Mabledon Place
London
WC1H 9AJ	

	JUDGE HAROLD WILSON:	This preliminary hearing has been concerned with the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal, which was promulgated on 12th November 1998. There had been a previous decision on interlocutory issues, promulgated on 3rd July 1998, which is in the papers with which we have been provided at page 6 of the bundle. It is noteworthy that the very experienced Chairman, sitting alone, set out his reasons for his decision on the preliminary matters and interlocutory matters at some length, and with some considerable understanding of the appellant’s position at that time. 

The decision complained about is one before a different Chairman, sitting with members, and what Mr Ciumei says about the matter is this. The appellant was alleging racial discrimination because some people were employed through favouritism in his view. The respondent denied that situation, although agreed that there had been a restructuring within the workforce. That restructuring had only taken place after wide consultation, including consultation with union representatives. Because, so the respondents says, the appellant’s old job vanished, he had to be found a new job  and the job which he was found was one grade lower than his former job. He appealed against that and the regrading, but it was upheld on appeal. Hence, his applications to the Employment Tribunal.

When the matter was heard by the different Chairman and members they found that the appellant’s claim was outside the three-month qualifying period. The tribunal also found that there were no grounds for making it just and equitable to extend the qualifying period because no fresh application had been presented after the internal grievance procedure was exhausted. 

On the appellant’s behalf, Mr Ciumei submits that the tribunal fell into error, and in any case, did not consider the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Aniagwu v London Borough of Hackney & Owens [1999] IRLR 303. In that case, which concerned an extension of time, the President stated in the course of his judgment at page 7D:

“It seems to us that that is entirely compatible with the reason given by the Applicant, as to why he had delayed, and if the Tribunal had asked themselves whether, in those circumstances the Applicant had acted reasonably, it seems to us that every Tribunal would have concluded that he was well entitled to take the view that it would be sensible to seek to redress his grievance through the internal grievance procedure before embarking on legal proceedings.”

It seems to us that this is a matter which should go forward for full argument. The question for full argument is whether the tribunal took the wrong approach to the exercise of its discretion under s. 68(6) of the Act in that they failed to have regard to all the circumstances of the case with which they were concerned, and in particular to those matters listed under paragraph 8 of the appellant’s skeleton argument for the preliminary hearing. We categorise the case as C with a time estimate of two hours.

We make the following directions:

(1)	The appellant shall be at liberty to file an amended Notice of Appeal by or before 16th June 1999.

(2)	The appellant shall be at liberty to amplify the matters in his preliminary hearing skeleton argument for the purposes of the skeleton for the full hearing.