 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Parsons & Ors v North Lindsey College [1997] UKEAT 448_97_0310 (3 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/448_97_0310.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 448_97_0310, [1997] UKEAT 448_97_310 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
MR A C BLYGHTON
MR L D COWAN
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellants | MS L BROOKS (of Counsel) Michael Scott & Co Solicitors 27 Britannia Street London WC1X 9JP |
MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Parsons and others in their case against North Lindsey College. It is an appeal against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal which was made on 8th January 1997. The case concerned selection for redundancy.
The grounds of appeal advanced by Ms Brooks are essentially two. Firstly that the tribunal erred in law when considering the omission to disclose the assessment scores in relation to the candidates being considered for redundancy. Secondly, it is said that the tribunal erred in its approach to assessing whether or not a collective agreement had been incorporated into the individual contracts of employment.
We have had the benefit of seeing the helpful skeleton argument prepared by Ms Brooks, and she has added to it in oral submissions. We take the view that the point about selection for redundancy and non-disclosure of the scores is an arguable point and ought to go to a full hearing. We do not think the same so far as the incorporation point is concerned. It seems to us that the tribunal carefully considered the terms of the agreement set out in paragraph 14 of its decision. They identified the legal principles set out by Hobhouse J, as he then was, in Alexander v Standard Telephones and Cables [1991] IRLR 286, and in paragraph 16 it seems to us they appropriately applied those legal principles to the circumstances before them. Accordingly, we permit this case to go forward on the first ground but not on the second.