[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Manchester City Council v. Thurston [2000] UKEAT 418_00_2909 (29 September 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/418_00_2909.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 418_00_2909, [2000] UKEAT 418__2909

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR NIGEL GRUNDY (Of Counsel) Manchester City Council Chief Executive's Department PO Box 532 Town Hall Albert Square Manchester M60 2LA


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. This appeal, brought by the Council against a majority decision of the Manchester Employment Tribunal (the Chairman dissenting) upholding the Applicant, Mr Thurston's complaint of unlawful deduction of wages, raises a number of arguable points of law in our view.
2. The facts and reasoning of the Employment Tribunal are fully set out in their decision with extended reasons promulgated on 10 February 2000. We shall not repeat them in this judgment. Instead, we identify the following questions of law for determination at a full inter- partes hearing:

(1) did the majority fall into error by failing to make a relevant finding of fact, namely the date on which the Applicant first suffered depression as a result of stress/anxiety. At paragraph 15 of reasons they merely found that his condition had commenced some time prior to 20 March 1998?

(2) on a proper construction of Clause 14(a) of the JNC Agreement, incorporated into the Applicant's contract of employment, did the majority fall into error in the meaning which they separately and differently gave to the expression "absence on account of sickness … due to or attributable to his own misconduct"?

(3) if the Applicant's absence fell within that expression, was it open to the majority to conclude, in the alternative, that the Council could not rely on the disqualification from benefit under Clause 14 on the ground that the Council had not produced evidence to show the extent and consistency of their approach to their exercise of discretion? Was that a relevant consideration for the Employment Tribunal?

3. This case will proceed to a full hearing, with a time estimate of 3 hours, Category B. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments, not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of these skeleton arguments to be lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal at the same time. There is no need for Chairman's notes of evidence in this case. There are no further directions.