Appeal No.	 EAT/171/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 7 June 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR L D COWAN
MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MR T G HARRIS	APPELLANT

THE POST OFFICE (ROYAL MAIL)	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR HARRIS IN PERSON
AND
MR CRAIG 
(OF COUNSEL)
(Instructed by)
Messrs Hammond Suddards
2 Park Lane
Leeds LS3 1ES	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	The purpose of this Hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an Appeal which Mr Harris wishes to make against a decision of an Employment Tribunal held at Hull on 30th October 1998.  The purpose of that Hearing was to adjudicate on the question of compensation that was due to him following the acceptance by his former employers, Royal Mail, that they had unlawfully discriminated against him under the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act, that they had broken his contract, and that they had unfairly, constructively dismissed him.  

1	The grounds of appeal complain about a number of aspects of the Tribunal’s decision, not all of which we consider amount to a point of law, and I can say at once that the decision which is now to be given is a decision of the majority of us;  Mr Cowan would take the view that this is not an arguable Appeal.  The majority view is that it is arguable that the Employment Tribunal have erred in the way they have approached the question of the loss of pension rights.  They have taken a multiplier of 2 years and it seems to us, that although it is a matter for an Industrial Jury, there may be grounds for saying that the multiplier of 2 years was so low as to constitute an error of law.

2	In relation to the injury to feelings and aggravated damages the total was £11,000.  It seems to us to be arguable that that itself also is an error of law in that it is arguably manifestly lower than it should have been, having regard to the serious nature of the complaints specified in the IT.1, which by accepting liability the Royal Mail have accepted in full as we understand it.  It is not clear to us how the Employment Tribunal have apportioned the £11,000 between injury to feelings and aggravated damage.  That itself may be a point which needs to be considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal at a further Hearing, namely whether it is necessary for a Tribunal to apportion damages in between those two elements.  

3	Accordingly, it is the view of the majority of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that this matter should proceed to a full hearing on the compensation.  The President would like to add that having regard to the terms of the IT.1 it is clear to him that this is a very serious case of persistent misconduct in the work place which has rendered Mr Harris ill.  It seems to us that the award for injury to feelings should take that into account, together with the element of aggravation which comes about as a result of this conduct going on for a very long period. It was, so the President thinks, clear to the Employment Tribunal that Mr Harris is still affronted by the behaviour which he was subjected to in his employment and it is the President’s hope that the Royal Mail will now reconsider its position.  

4	There were negotiations between the parties, of which we have become aware, as a result of the way the Appeal has been presented in written form to us that offers were made which might appear to be generous and recognise the Royal Mail’s obligations to this damaged individual.  It is the President’s hope that when the Royal Mail have had an opportunity to consider this matter further in the light of this very short Judgment, that they might be prepared to renew the position which they had previously taken up.  Mr Harris was employed by them for quite some considerable time and it would be regrettable if his position as it now is was not fully recognised by Royal Mail.  

5	It is therefore the President’s hope that there will be no need for a further hearing of this Appeal.  During the course of this morning, an indication was given as to what Mr Harris’s position is in relation to compensation.  We would think that if he went back on that, he would have only himself to blame.  We think that that might be a way which would enable the parties to resolve their differences which would not involve us any further.  I do not consider that any of the other points that were raised were arguable in relation to the period for the loss of earnings.  Those were judgments for the Employment Tribunal to make and we cannot say that they erred in law.  So by a majority, we allow this to go through for a Full Hearing.

6	I regard this as a Category B case.  Questions of compensation for injury to feelings in discrimination cases are important and that is reflected by that marking.  We do not need notes of evidence and I therefore would include in the Order that no Notes of Evidence be required and the Notice of Appeal can stand in its present form because I have identified in the Judgment what the two points are which are to be argued and to that will confine the Appeal to those two issues only.  I would estimate that the time it would take to deal with this case would be ½ day.