Appeal No.EAT/707/00	 

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 24 November 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON
MS S R CORBY
MR I EZEKIEL

MR PAUL FULLER	APPELLANT

MASTERCARE SERVICE & DISTRIBUTION	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MISS S PARENT
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Acre Lane Chambers
30a Acre Lane
Brixton
London SW2 5SG	

JUDGE H WILSON

1	This is the preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by the original Applicant against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that he had not been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, and that the Respondent had not discriminated against him on the grounds of his sex.  

2	The short facts were that the Applicant had worked for the Respondent for 6 years, as an in-store repair engineer.  He wore his hair in a pony tail, without complaint or adverse comment, although in breach of the hair regulations, except for an occasion in 1996 when comment was made, but it was not pursued until 1998.  There was then a disciplinary meeting with a final warning.  An appeal resulted in the warning being reduced, and then changed regulations were introduced which the Applicant refused to sign.  

3	There was a further disciplinary meeting in June 1999, resulting in the issue of a final written warning.  Following the final warning the Appellant was dismissed then complained that women employees, with long hair, were not treated in the same way. 

4	The Respondent claims that the Applicant complied with the long hair rule when he began his employment, that he had been required to have his hair cut in 1996, that in 1998 he had refused to comply with similar requirements as a matter of principle, and that what they did was not sex discrimination because it was the same code for all. 

5	We have considered the grounds of appeal which have been submitted and are set out in four pages.  We consider that the matter should proceed to full argument on the question whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in failing to consider the justifiability of the restriction in coming to its conclusion.  We categorise it Category C and put a time estimate of 2 hours