Appeal No.	EAT/1475/98 & EAT/207/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 17 November 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE N PUGSLEY 
MRS R CHAPMAN
MR P DAWSON OBE

MR F CAMPBELL	APPELLANT

GLOUCESTERSHIRE PROBATION SERVICE & OTHERS	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS	

JUDGE PUGSLEY:
1	This is a case that comes before us by way of an application to appeal.  It is now 10 minutes to 4.  We have had absolutely no indication from Mr Campbell as to why he is not here and we have made attempts to get in touch with him.  No information has come to us, and, we can see that the only door open to us is to hear the case in his absence.  

2	We have carefully considered the arguments that Mr Campbell has made.  There are in fact two issues that are dealt with.  The first of these is the Notice of Appeal which is received on the 12 December 1998 which is concerned that the Employment Tribunal did not review an earlier decision.  The second of these is emerged in an appeal dated 14 January which was an appeal against of the Tribunal’s decision.  

3	As far as the first of these matters are concerned it starts life, if we can put it in that way, with a decision of Mr Colin Toomer on the 17 June 1998, which is set out at page 9 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal bundle.  In that  case, there was a determination that as to the race and sex discrimination brought within the time limit.  The Tribunal sitting with members eventually came to the view in all these circumstances:-

“come to the unanimous conclusion that it would be just and equitable to extend time in this case to permit the applicant’s claim of race and sex discrimination to proceed.  Accordingly they will be adjourned to be determined upon their merits on a date to be fixed in due course”.

4	During the course of that hearing, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s claim against a second and third respondents was dismissed upon his withdrawal of the claims.  The Tribunal did not deal in anyway with that withdrawal, other than to note that that was how the matter was dealt with and to give a brief explanation of matters which are dealt with at a later stage.

5	On the 6 October 1998 Mr Christopher Tickle sitting with two members, he being the Regional Chairman, dealt, with a review.  He pointed out the applicant had withdrawn his complaint against a second and third respondent because it was pointed out the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with that.  In Mr Toomer’s decision reference had been made to the case of Adekeye v The Post Office (no. 2) [1997] IRLR 105.  Mr Toomer had said:-

“What happens to somebody after there has been a refusal to employ him may or may not be discriminatory, but it does not amount to discrimination “in relation to employment”."

6	That was the law on which as everyone at that stage thought it to be.  Indeed paragraph 6 of the original decision sets out the basis of saying there was no jurisdiction in respect of the matters that occurred after employment.  

7	The Regional Chairman, Mr Christopher Tickle, summarised the various matters, he noted that the application for review is made into a letter dated the 28 September its based on the recent decision of a European Court of Justice in Coote V Granada Hospitality Ltd (The Times 1 October 1998).  After noting the application was out of time the Tribunal went on to say that the reason they were dismissing it was that it had no grounds of success.  The Chairman conducting the review, pointed out, that in their view, there was an interest in finality and they saw there was no point in continuing this because, in their view, there was simply was no reasonable prospect for the applicant satisfying a Tribunal that victimisation had taken place, on the facts of this case.  

8	Well we have not had the benefit of any oral argument that Mr Campbell might have put.  All we have got is the assertion that the interests of justice require it. In our view, we do not consider that it is appropriate to say that there is an arguable point here.  We think it was within the range of discretion and competence of the Chairman conducting that review to reach the decision they did, it was a decision of a full Tribunal.  We note in parenthesis it was not the same Tribunal Chairman who made the original decision who carried out the review but the review was by members and a Regional Chairman.  However in his letter to the Tribunal the Regional Chairman explains the position as to why Mr Toomer was not available.

10	We turn now to the question of the appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal dismissing the application which is on page 2 of the second bundle a decision on the 26 November.  The Appellant had signed an affidavit page 11 – 13 which makes serious criticisms of the Chairman.  It suggests that the Chairman screamed ‘sit-down’, his matter was hostile, he was bullying and he cut him off before making his answers.  We have looked at these allegations in the light of the reply of Mr Tickle dated 23 February.  We have read through all the papers.  We welcome the fact that this Chairman has done the appellant and this Tribunal the courtesy of answering the issues raised in detail and specifically.  One can understand that holders of judicial office as do others feel upset when complaints are made against them.  It is far better to deal with it the way this chairman did by, in terms, setting out his view.  In the light of that we do not consider that there was any objection that can be made to the way in which this Tribunal dealt with the matter and in those circumstances we dismiss both matters because in our view there are no arguable point which arises.