[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Corrigan v. British Telecommunications Plc [1999] UKEAT 391_99_0111 (1 November 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/391_99_0111.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 391_99_0111, [1999] UKEAT 391_99_111

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr D Carrington (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Omofade & Co Solicitors Rurington House 82 Great Eastern Street London EC2A 3JL


 


MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:

1. This matter has been listed before us this morning by way of a preliminary hearing. It is our task to decide whether there is a point of law arising out of the decision of the Tribunal such as would justify an inter-parties hearing, that is a hearing at which British Telecommunications Plc is represented.
2. Somewhat to our surprise Mr Carrington in an admirable address has persuaded us that there is such a point. It arises as follows. He submits that the failure of his client to attend at 9:00am should not have been regarded as a disciplinary offence, unless and until there was application of the flexible working hours agreement so as to make 'core' time start at 9:00am. It will be observed that this point was taken somewhat belatedly on her behalf in February 1998, see paragraph 16 of the extended reasons.
3. His complaint is that the point having been taken the Tribunal did not look further into it, and made no attempt to relate the somewhat Byzantine terms of that agreement to the particular facts under consideration.
4. We have taken the view that that argument is one that merits a response by British Telecommunications. It may well be that by way of their response they can demonstrate that the common sense of the situation matched up with the requirement of the agreement. But that matter does remain for submission and argument, and for that reason, we adjourn this matter so as to allow for that inter-parties hearing.
5. Mr Carrington has raised another point that is in his skeleton argument and relates to the procedural approach to his client's dismissal. This morning we made no observations at all about that save to leave it to Mr Carrington to get this Tribunal interested in it if he can at the hearing which is going to take place in any event.
6. Turning then to the practicalities of that hearing. We would rate it at half a day, Category C and we would direct that there be an exchange of skeleton arguments 14 days before the hearing date.