Appeal No.	 EAT/609/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 21 July 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR A E R MANNERS
MR P M SMITH

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL	APPELLANTS

MRS G PORTER	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING EX-PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY
OR ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLENTS

	JUDGE LEVY:	On 1 July 1998 an Industrial Tribunal received a complaint from Mrs G Porter, the Respondent to this Appeal, complaining that after employment with the Appellant from 18 April 1983 to 8 June 1998, she had been unfairly dismissed.

1	After an appearance had been entered by the Appellant, there was a hearing at Manchester on 27 November 1998.  The decision was remitted to the parties on 19 November 1998.  The decision of the Tribunal unanimously was that the Respondent had been unfairly dismissed.  The Tribunal unanimously ordered that the Appellant reinstate the Respondent in her post as Finance Support Manager from 14 December 1998, and that that reinstatement must be without loss of seniority, pension rights, holiday entitlement or any other contractual entitlement due to the Applicant before her dismissal, and ordered that the Respondent pay the Appellant the sum of £2,497.  

2	From that decision, an appeal was received by this Tribunal on 7 April 1999, submitting that the Tribunal had misdirected itself regarding the meaning and interpretation of a letter from the Appellant’s General Practitioner, dated 7 May 1998 (“the May letter”).  We have had a Skeleton Argument from the Representative of the Appellant.  There is also a document saying the Appellant did not intend to be represented at the hearing this morning of the PHD.  We have carefully considered the contents of the Skeleton Argument against the text of the decision.  We find there was no misdirection or misunderstanding by the Industrial Tribunal of the May letter.  

3	The point is made in the Skeleton Argument that there is a difference between the Summary Reasons and the Extended Reasons given by the Employment Tribunal.  We have seen both the Summary Reasons and Extended Reasons but if there is difference it is a difference without a distinction.  Summary Reasons are given by a Tribunal at the end of an oral hearing to give brief indications to the parties to show why they have won or lost.  If Extended Reasons are given, then the parties obtain a fuller judgment intended both for the record and so that they can better understand the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision. 

4	This is the course which was followed here.  We all find that the content of the paragraph in the Extended Reasons which is criticised by the Appellant perfectly clear and straightforward.  We do not consider in the circumstances that this matter should go forward to a full hearing.  In the circumstances we will dismiss the appeal at this stage.