[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Jones v. Pauls Care Services Ltd [2001] UKEAT 717_01_1810 (18 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/717_01_1810.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 717_01_1810, [2001] UKEAT 717_1_1810

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR G MARKEN Free Representation Unit Peer House 4th Floor 8-14 Verulam Street London WC1X 8LZ


 


JUDGE A WAKEFIELD:

1. This an ex parte preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mrs Ann Jones and Mrs Rhian Wyn Jones against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Caernarfon in February and April 2001, by which the Appellants' claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination were dismissed.
2. The original applications to the Tribunal had contained other claims but those were either withdrawn or were dealt with and are not relevant to this appeal.
3. In the Decision, which was promulgated on 3 May 2001, the Employment Tribunal set out the issues between the parties, the evidence and the facts that they found, the submissions of the respective representatives and they then, in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Decision, gave their reasons for finding that the dismissals were fair.
4. Finally, in paragraph 17 of the Decision, they set out their conclusion as regards the complaints of sex discrimination and it is this conclusion which is the subject of challenge in the appeal. They say there as follows:

"17 As to the applicants' complaints of sex discrimination, nothing was stated whatsoever by either applicant in evidence in that respect, neither were any documents introduced by them. Therefore, the tribunal accepts the respondent's submission that no case was put forward by the applicants for the respondent to answer, nor for that matter for the tribunal to consider in accordance with the principles in the LONDON UNDERGROUND case."

5. By the Notice of Appeal it is contended that the Employment Tribunal failed, in making those findings, to take into account firstly, documentation which had been in the Appellants' bundle in support of the claim relating to sex discrimination, secondly oral evidence from the Appellants as to the difficulties which they might face if their rotas were changed so as to require them to work on Saturday nights when they had other caring commitments in their domestic lives and, thirdly, that statistical evidence which was sought to be put before the Tribunal (and we understand was actually in documentation in an agreed bundle) was not allowed by the Chairman to be put in evidence.
6. Having read the Statements which the Applicants had put before the Employment Tribunal and which had stood as their evidence in chief and having heard the submissions which have been made today on the Appellants' behalf by Mr Marken, who appears through the Free Representation Unit and to whom we are extremely grateful, we do consider that it is arguable that the Employment Tribunal in dealing with the claim relating to sex discrimination may have failed to take into account all relevant factors in reaching their conclusion that there was no case to answer. Also, we consider that they may have failed properly to exercise their discretion as to whether or not to admit the evidence of statistics in relation to that claim.
7. We are therefore going to allow the matter to go forward to a full hearing and in order that that hearing may properly deal with all relevant matters, we are going to make the following directions.
8. Firstly, the Chairman's notes of all evidence relating to the sex discrimination aspects of the claims should be provided to the Appeal Tribunal.
9. Secondly, if those notes do not, in the view of the Appellants' and their representative, fully resolve the question of what occurred during the hearing when the statistical evidence was sought to be introduced on behalf of the Appellants, then an affidavit may be sworn by the Appellants' then representative, Mr Singer of the Citizens Advice Bureau at Holyhead, such affidavit to be sent to the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal for any comments he may have and the affidavit and any comments from the Chairman to be available to the Appeal Tribunal.
10. We will also give permission for an amended Notice of Appeal to be drafted and to be the basis of the appeal, such amended notice to be filed and served not later than 8 November 2001; skeleton arguments to be exchanged between the parties and provided to the Appeal Tribunal not later than 14 days prior to the hearing. The hearing is to be Category C with a time estimate of half a day.