Appeal No.	 EAT/475/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 June 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR K M HACK JP
MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MS S CAWLEY & OTHERS	APPELLANTS

HAMMERSMITH HOSPITALS NHS TRUST	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR T PULLEN
(of Counsel)
Hammersmith & Fulham Community Law Centre
142/144 King Street
Hammersmith
London W6 0QU

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):     The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal, which various Applicants wished to make, against a unanimous decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at London (North).

	The decision of the Tribunal was reduced to writing and runs to some 11 pages.  It was sent to the parties on 30 January 1998, after a five-day hearing spread over September and January.

	The Applicants and Appellants are all radiographers who are employed by the Hammersmith Hospital’s National Health Service Trust.  That Trust was set up in April 1994, as a result of reorganisation within the Health Service and it brought together, effectively, the Hammersmith Hospital, Queen Charlotte’s Hospital and the Charing Cross Hospital under one management board.

	The Applicants, as I said, are all radiographers.  In these proceedings, as I understand it, they are all Charing Cross staff and the dispute between the parties arises out of a change which the employers introduced into the practice and procedure for dealing with standby and on-call duties.  

	The employers wished to introduce changes to those duties.  The employees were resistant to the changes.  In due time there was a termination of the contracts of employment and re-engagement on new terms, which these Applicants accepted under protest.  The case therefore, was brought as an unfair dismissal case, the Respondents contending that there was some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify dismissal, namely the sound, economic business reasons, justifying the change and the dismissal.

	It has to be said that the written Decision is not always easy to follow.  It contains a number of typographical errors and other lapses.  In order to assist the Employment Appeal Tribunal at the later hearing, I would indicate that the on-call and standby arrangements that are relevant to these proceedings before the reorganisation was introduced, are set out at paragraph 7.15 of the Respondents’ IT3, and those are to be compared with the new arrangements introduced in 1996, which are set out in paragraph 7.34 of the IT3.  Those paragraphs give a fuller and better understanding of the before and after position than paragraphs 4, 5 and 11 of the Industrial Tribunal’s Decision which are to be read in the light of those paragraphs from the IT3.

	Mr Pullen has presented the Employment Appeal Tribunal with a full and comprehensive skeleton argument for which we are grateful.  It will be apparent to anybody reading that document that there are issues to be debated as to the effect, if any, of the Working Time Directive on the dispute between the parties and, as to the proper approach of an Industrial Tribunal, in a case where there is a reorganisation which allegedly has an impact on Health and Safety issues.  He tells us, and we accept, there is no authority which is directly in issue on that point.

	The purpose of this short judgment is simply to indicate that the Tribunal decision should be supplemented by reference to the IT3 and to indicate the broad nature of the dispute between the parties.  The purpose is not to seek to limit the argument which can be raised, either on the Appellants’ behalf or in due time on the Respondents’ behalf.  

	It is likely to have an impact on other cases.  It is a category A case because this will, I think, be the first time that the EAT has had the chance to consider the Working Time Directive and its potential application.  It is also important, not only to the parties themselves, but also perhaps, more generally, in the Health Service.  

	This is not a case where notes of evidence are required and I direct that no notes of evidence will be required.

	Mr Pullen has indicated that it would be desirable that this case should be given expedition.  We quite understand why he makes that submission to us.  It seems to us that Listing should find a slot for this case as soon as is reasonably practicable, but I have indicated to him that the EAT is currently under considerable pressure, because of problems which have occurred in the past, through no fault of its own in relation to its jurisdiction.