Appeal No.	 EAT/239/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 26 March 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR J D DALY
MR A E R MANNERS

NEBRASKA GROUP OF COMPANIES LIMITED	APPELLANTS

MR M WALKER	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR A PATTNI
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Miss H Price
Nebraska Group of Companies Limited
7 Princes Court
Wapping Lane
London
E1 9DA	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether Nebraska Group of Companies Limited have an arguable point of law in an appeal which they wish to make against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Stratford on 3rd July 1997. 

	The Company had entered a Notice of Appearance to the claim which had been presented against them by a former employee of theirs, Mr Walker. That claim was for unlawful deduction of wages and the Company’s response which is set out in the grounds of resistance, their IT3, is that Mr Walker had agreed that monies were owed by him to the respondents comprising, (and the figures were set out) income protection, private healthcare, unpaid leave and personal computer purchases. The net result was that it was their contention that the former employee owed them money and not the other way around.

	However, having put in their IT3, they did not appear at the Industrial Tribunal to argue their case. But it seems to us to be arguable that under paragraph 9(3) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure, the Industrial Tribunal was required to consider the contents of the Notice of Appearance in arriving at their decision. It is not clear from the terms of the decision itself that the Industrial Tribunal have fulfilled that duty. 

	It also seems to us to be arguable that they were wrong to have awarded the gross sum for arrears of wages, that is without the deduction of tax. Whether they were right in relation to the other deductions which the Company refers to in its IT3, is more questionable having regard to the PAYE document which is included within our papers. But it does seem to us in the circumstances, that it is arguable that the total figure arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal was wrong, and also that they approached the case perhaps without regard to the IT3. 

	On those points it will therefore be suitable for hearing before a full tribunal of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It is obviously important that this case which involves a relatively small sum of money should be heard and disposed of as a matter of urgency, and therefore I direct that this be listed on that basis. Category C, 1 hour.