Appeal No.	EAT/1422/99 
& EAT/105/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 31 March 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR L D COWAN
MR E HAMMOND OBE

EAT/1422/99
MR R TYRREL	APPELLANT
TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS UNION	RESPONDENTS

EAT/105/00
MR R TYRREL	APPELLANT
THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	We have before us two separate appeals brought by Mr Tyrell for preliminary hearing.

Background

1.	The appellant was employed by the Ministry of Defence [‘MOD’] as a Stores Assistant at Queen Elizabeth Barracks, near York, from March 1987 until his dismissal on 15th March 1996. He brought a claim of unfair dismissal before the Employment Tribunal (case no. 8406/96) by an Originating Application presented on 9th February 1996. He was then advised by his trade union, the Transport & General Workers Union [‘TGWU’].

2.	It seems that the appellant was advised that his case was not a strong one and before it came on for a substantive hearing he signified his acceptance to an offer in settlement by MOD of £550, first by a memorandum of instruction to his trade union representative, Mr Long, signed by the appellant and dated 20th January 1997, and secondly by signing an ACAS Form COT3, having earlier indicated that he did not wish to have the case settled.

3.	As a result a Chairman sitting at Leeds Employment Tribunal, by a decision dated 4th March 1997, adjourned the proceedings generally, having been advised on an agreement to settle.

MOD
4.	Since that date the appellant has made numerous attempts to reinstate the proceedings against MOD, but without success. The most recent judicial decision, the subject of Appeal No. 105/00, is that of the Regional Chairman, Mr Sneath, dated 15th December 1999. The Chairman held that the proceedings had been compromised in accordance with s.203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and could not now be reopened, an earlier attempt to do so having been rejected by the Chairman that made the original order on 4th March 1997.

5.	We have considered the Notice of Appeal, in the form of a letter dated 23rd December 1999, and what is described as a skeleton argument, which mainly takes the form of manuscript comments on arbitrary letters and other documents generated in the case.

6.	We repeat what was said by Holland J in a judgment given in Appeal 909/99 in the appellant’s case brought against TGWU on 29th October 1999. Our powers to interfere with a decision or order of an Employment Tribunal are limited to correcting errors of law. None is made out in this appeal.

TGWU
7.	Dissatisfied with what he perceives to be mishandling of his case by his union the appellant has commenced various actions against TGWU, originally against an official of the union, Mr Davey,  in the Employment Tribunal. In particular:

(1)	Case No. 1803229/98. A complaint of disability discrimination/victimisation and unjustifiable discipline, contained in a letter dated 19th July 1998;

(2)	Case No. 1900878/99. An additional complaint of victimisation/discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by a letter dated 2nd March 1999;

(3)	Case No. 1803898/99. A further complaint of unjustifiable discipline, against Mr Scott, an officer of the union, by letter dated 23rd June 1999, and of disability victimisation.

8.	There have been a number of hearings, culminating with an Employment Tribunal sitting at Leeds, under the Chairmanship of Mr J Hunter, on 4th October 1999. By a decision promulgated with extended reasons on 15th October 1999, that tribunal recorded that the appellant had withdrawn his original case No. 1803229/98. Accordingly that was dismissed. Further, they dismissed his complaints of disability victimisation contained in Case Nos. 180078/99 and 1803898/99. In short, the tribunal concluded that the union did not behave improperly in its conduct of the proceedings; nothing which the union did could be construed as victimisation under s.55 of the 1995 Act.

9.	Against that decision the appellant brings the further appeal now before us (EAT/1422/99) by a letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 27th November 1999.

10.	We make this general observation. Within the voluminous paperwork submitted by the appellant in support of the appeal is the last page of a medical report by Mr Peter Morgan, a Consultant Psychiatrist, which appears to be dated 5th June 1998. There, Mr Morgan concludes that the appellant is showing symptoms of a psychiatric illness, autonomic hyperarousal. The appellant does not appear before us today due to his current anxiety state. Accordingly we are unable to form any view ourselves. However, it is our very clear impression from reading the papers that the appellant had become obsessed with this litigation to the point that it has taken over his life. Insofar as that is due to his medical condition we naturally have sympathy for him. However, we also have sympathy for the respondent union and the enormous trouble and expense to which it has been put in defending these proceedings. We have taken account of Mr Scott’s letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 21st December 1999. Similarly, we share the robust line taken by Judge John Prophet to the appellant in a letter dated 7th February 2000, to which the appellant takes great exception.

11.	This has to stop. These continuing proceedings are a plain abuse of the process. There are no grounds for this appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. There is no rational justification for the appellant to pursue these proceedings at all.

12.	In these circumstances we shall dismiss both appeals.