Appeal No.	EAT/1160/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 16 January 2001

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT) 
(AS IN CHAMBERS)

MS S CROFT	APPELLANT

THE POST OFFICE	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

MEETING FOR DIRECTIONS

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MS J ELLINS
(of Counsel)
Equal Opportunities Commission
Principal Legal Officer
Arndale House
Arndale Centre
Manchester
M4 3EQ	
For the Respondents	MR P ROSE
(of Counsel)
Messrs Eversheds
Solicitors
1 Royal Standard Place
Nottingham
NG1 6FZ	

	MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT):		I have a limited point in front of me by way of a directions hearing. 

1.	On behalf of the appellant, Ms S Croft, Ms Ellins asks for Chairman’s Notes on a relatively limited subject. The Notice of Appeal includes as ground 6(k) the following:

“In any event, the tribunal’s conclusion that amendment of the Respondent’s harassment policy and education of the workforce would have had no more than a marginal effect was perverse in that it was unsupported by any evidence, and was contrary to the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses. Mr De Marco, Mr Gaunt and Mrs Parker, who all agreed that such steps would have been helpful.”

2.	On 1st August 2000 the Equal Opportunities Commission, who are supporting Ms Croft’s case, raised a request that Chairman’s Notes relative to paragraph 6(k) should be obtained. 

3.	On behalf of the employer, the Post Office, Mr Rose raises no principled objection to the request for Notes being sent off to the Chairman.

4.	It does seem to me that it is appropriate that there should be a request to the Chairman for the Notes, but, equally, that it should be limited to the subject matter of paragraph 6(k). The Chairman should be sent a copy of, inter alia, paragraph 6(k) so that he knows precisely to what the request is directed. He should be asked whether the conclusion that is said to have been reached in the first three lines of paragraph 6(k) was, first of all, unsupported by any evidence; if there was any evidence which, in the Chairman’s view, did support that conclusion, the notes of that evidence need to be given. Secondly, it is alleged that the conclusion was contrary to the evidence of the three witnesses, Mr De Marco, Mr Gaunt and Mrs Parker, and if the Chairman notices any evidence of those three witnesses which is contrary to the conclusion reached, that needs to be set out in the Notes. Thirdly, it is said that all those three witnesses agreed that such steps would have been helpful. Again, any evidence given on the subject of agreement that such steps would have been helpful is to be covered by the Chairman’s Notes. In that way, such evidence, if any, as is available to prove or disprove the ground in paragraph 6(k) needs to be the subject matter of the Chairman’ Notes so that when the matter comes to the EAT an informed view can be taken on the point. That is the only direction I am asked to give. I shall ask Ms Ellins and Mr Rose whether there are any other directions which can usefully be given at this stage, but otherwise that is the only one I will give.

[Following discussions with Counsel]

5.	In so far as I need to give further directions, I fix a time estimate of a day and a half, Category A and the request for Chairman’s Notes is to issue in the manner I have indicated.