Appeal No.	 EAT/374/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 December 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN
MR P A L PARKER CBE
MS D WARWICK

MR K J FRAHER	APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Mrs S Pontac
(of Counsel)
Messrs Pattisons
Solicitors
52/53 Russell Square
London WC1B 4HP	

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE ALTMAN:	We refer to the parties in their capacity before the Industrial Tribunal.  This is an appeal by the Applicant from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (North) on 6 and 7 January 1998.  It comes before us by way of a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is an arguable point of law, such as to justify consideration of this appeal in full by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

	The Applicant appeared before the Industrial Tribunal in person and prepared a lengthy Notice of Appeal.  We are indebted to Mrs Pontac who has refined that Notice of Appeal in what is at the moment a skeleton argument, and she has identified the “baby” of the legal point which may otherwise have been lost amidst the “bath water” and the other matters which have been raised.

	We have given leave for the Notice of Appeal to be amended by substituting for the original one the substance of the skeleton argument and we direct that a Notice of Appeal containing that substance but set out in proper form be filed with the Employment Appeal Tribunal within seven days of today, that is by the 23 December 1998.

	Essentially, it appears that the argument hinges upon the particular procedure which was adopted by the Respondents in dealing with such problems that the Applicant had.  In paragraph 20 of the decision of the Industrial Tribunal there was a finding that the Respondents applied the “managing absence” procedures set out in the handbook, but in paragraph 24 of the decision the Tribunal find that the Applicant thereafter was applying for jobs under the “redeployment scheme”.

	The former scheme, on the documents that we have had, required the Respondents to be more pro-active in the search for alternative employment and in conducting a job search, the latter scheme merely giving an opportunity to an employee to apply for redeployment in accordance with published lists of vacancies.  It seems to us that there is an argument that the Industrial Tribunal erred in their approach to these procedures such as to merit this matter being considered in full by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and we give leave for the matter to proceed on that basis.

	We direct that not less than 14 days before the hearing, which will be listed for half a day in category C, the Appellants should file with the Employment Appeal Tribunal, a fresh bundle of documents confined to the central documents necessary for the appeal as now phrased.  Secondly we direct that skeleton arguments be furnished to the Employment Appeal Tribunal not less than 14 days before the hearing of the appeal.  We note that all other grounds of appeal contained in the original notice have been formally abandoned.