Appeal No.	 EAT/277/99  

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 July 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR J A SCOULLER
MS B SWITZER

MR JAMES ROBERTS  	APPELLANT

CASTROL (UK) LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised	29 July 1999

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED 	

JUDGE LEVY:	By application to an Industrial Tribunal received on 11 August 1998, the Appellant, Mr James Roberts, complained that he had a right not to be refused employment on grounds related to trade union membership.  

1	The Respondent put in a Notice of Appearance received on 7 September 1998 which said in terms that the failure of the Appellant to obtain employment with the Respondent was on merit and gave particulars of why that had happened.  There was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal sitting in Liverpool on 13 November 1998 and the panel met in chambers on 22 January 1999.  The decision was promulgated on 3 February 1999.  The unanimous decision was that the Appellant’s case failed; it was dismissed.  

2	A Notice of Appeal was submitted by the Appellant dated 11 February 1999, which complained of bias by the Chairman at the Employment Tribunal who heard his complaint.  Part of the bias alleged was that the Chairman was a little cross because the Appellant was not present in time, part because the Chairman told him he should give his evidence or address the Tribunal seated rather than standing which he wished.  The Appellant also complained of bias because the Chairman suggested to the Respondent’s representative that it was not necessary to call one of its witnesses before taking of evidence was concluded.  

3	Mr Roberts set out his complaint in an affidavit sworn on 16 March 1999.  The Chairman replied to that affidavit with a letter dated 24 March 1999 which included the comments of the members of the panel sitting with him that day.  The Appellant faxed this Tribunal on 31 March, commenting on the comments of the Chairman and the side members.  He has written to us today saying for financial reasons he is unable to attend and asks us to deal with this appeal on the PHD system in his absence.

4	Allegations of bias are always closely examined by this Tribunal because it is imperative that everyone has a fair hearing.  We have looked at all that Mr Roberts has said to us and looking at the four corners of the decision, we are all satisfied that on the facts as set out there, the Tribunal was entitled to reach the decision that it did.  As to the allegation of bias, the matters which occurred early in the hearing, of which complaint was made, we are sure, are all part of the hurly burly incidental to the running of a busy Employment Tribunal and in no way would a bystander present in the proceedings have thought they showed bias to the Appellant.  We are satisfied that no bias was shown.

5	As to the failure of the Respondent to call witness, it is quite clear that the hearing went on late in the day and it was merely to save the parties time and money that the Chairman made a very sensible intervention.  If the Appellant wished to call a witness to give evidence, there was every opportunity for him to do so.  He cannot require his opponent to call a witness so he can have the opportunity to cross-examine him.  This is simply not the way Industrial Tribunals run.  

6	In the circumstances, we have carefully considered all that Mr Roberts says in the documents which have been presented to us in this appeal and in our judgment there is no arguable case to go forward to appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal at this stage.