Appeal No.	EAT/1349/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 3 February 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON
MR D A C LAMBERT
MRS J M MATTHIAS

SFI GROUP PLC	APPELLANTS

MISS J COLLINS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR M O'CONNOR
(Employment Consultant)
First Assist Group
Marshalls Court
Marshalls Road
Sutton
Surrey
SM1 4DU	

	JUDGE H WILSON:	The preliminary hearing of the appeal against the finding by the Employment Tribunal has been presented today by Mr O’Connor on behalf of the proposed Appellant.

1	It is a case in which the Applicant complained of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and sex discrimination.  She had worked as a Deputy Manager for one of the enterprises run by the Respondent Company.  Although her first appraisal had been above average, her second, which fell to be completed after difficulties had arisen with her Manager, was not so satisfactory.  He became cold and indifferent towards her and she alleged harassment and bullying by him and that nobody investigated any of her complaints.  She also alleged that she was less favourably treated than a man because of constant references to her being a single mother with a small daughter and therefore not suited to the environment of the enterprise of which she was the Deputy Manager.

2	The Employment Tribunal deferred to a later date the consideration of the merits of that particular aspect of these claims.  

3	There was a preliminary hearing at which the Employment Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction about the wrongful dismissal complaints and therefore dismissed them.  They found that the Applicant’s employment had terminated on 2 June 1999, which was when she received notice that her appeal against dismissal had failed, but because her application for breach of contract was made during her employment and because the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction extended only to complaints arising on or subsequently to termination, they had no jurisdiction.  They did however find that the sex discrimination case should be adjourned to a date for trial.

4	Having heard Mr O’Connor this morning, it is our view that the matter should go forward for full argument on the question whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in the way in which it purported to apply the guidance contained in the judgments of the Court of Appeal in the case of Savage v Sainsbury [1980] IRLR 109.

5	We categorise the case Category C and assess the time at one hour and we direct that copies of the judgments in Savage v Sainsbury and Board of Governors, National Heart and Chest Hospitals v Nambiar [1981] IRLR 196 should be available for the Tribunal at the full hearing, together with an amplified skeleton argument, if so desired.  If further skeleton arguments are to be provided, they should be filed 14 days before the date fixed for hearing.