Appeal No.	 EAT/387/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 15 June 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR J C SHRIGLEY
MR S M SPRINGER MBE

CRYSTAL CLEANING COMPANY (UK) LTD	APPELLANTS

MR T CHANDLER	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR P OLDHAM
(of Counsel)
Instructed By:
Messrs Jacklyn Dawson 
& Meyrick Williams
(Solicitors)
Equity Chambers
John Frost Square
Newport
South Wales  
NP9 1PW	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	This is an employer’s appeal against a majority decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Southampton on 14 December 1998.  The Applicant, Mr Chandler’s, complaints of disability discrimination succeeded.  That decision with extended reasons was promulgated on 18 December 1998.  

1	The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent as a general cleaner on 11 September 1997.  He is epileptic and it is common ground that he is disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.  He was summarily dismissed on 22 April 1998 and by an Originating Application presented on 2 July 1998, he alleged that after a period off sick due to a change in his medication, he returned to work, the Tribunal found, on 17 April 1998, whereupon the Respondent altered his hours of work and reduced his pay.  When he complained of these changes the Respondent dismissed him.  He alleged that the sole reason for his dismissal related to his disability.

2	By their Notice of Appearance the Respondent resisted the claim and contended that the reason for his dismissal was his extreme verbal abuse and threat of immediate physical violence towards his manager.  The Tribunal heard conflicting accounts as to what happened on 22 April 1998 between the Applicant and his manager Mrs Caddick.  He denied having threatened her.  A witness to the incident, Mr Jarman, said that he had been abusive and did threaten her and thereupon was dismissed.  

3	By a majority, the Tribunal preferred Mr Jarman’s evidence.  They also rejected the allegation that his dismissal was in any way related to alterations to his hours of work and pay.  That claim was rejected.  The Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal related to the Applicant’s rudeness to Mrs Caddick, but they then went on to consider the question whether that rudeness was in turn a reason related to his disability.  The majority of the Tribunal concluded that it was and that Mrs Caddick should have been aware that it was related to his disability as a result of the stress arising from the discussion on 22 April.  

4	Accordingly, the complaint was made out.  The minority member observed that there was no medical evidence to show that the Applicant’s reactions to Mrs Caddick on 22 April 1998 were as a result of his disability and would have dismissed the application, however, the majority view prevailed.  We have had the advantage of amended grounds of appeal settled by Mr Oldham and the Skeleton Argument in support of the appeal, which Mr Oldham has developed in oral submission.  

5	For the reasons advanced we think that this appeal is arguable and ought to proceed to a full hearing.  For that purpose, we give the following directions:  the case will be listed for two hours, Category C; there will be exchange of Skeleton Arguments not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing, copies of those Skeleton Arguments to be lodged with this Tribunal.  We shall not at this stage make any order for Chairman’s Notes of Evidence; both parties have liberty to apply to me if it is thought necessary for an order to be made.