Appeal No. EAT/1372/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 4 December 2001

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR R N STRAKER

THE HOME OFFICE	APPELLANT

MS G FLETCHER-COOKE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

INTERLOCUTORY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR STILITZ
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
The Treasury Solicitor
Queen Anne's Chambers
28 Broadway
London SW1H 9JS	
For the Respondent	The Appellant in person	

JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1	We have considered this case over a lot longer period on the issue, on an interlocutory hearing, than is normal because we think we ought to do justice to what we believe are the real and legitimate concerns of Ms Fletcher-Cooke. 

2	We want to make it very clear that we recognise the issue of her dismissal is a crucial one  We do not wish to say anything that pre-empts any decision that has to be made about that. The rights and the wrongs of Ms Fletcher-Cooke’s recent employment history is not a matter that we are called upon to determine, and in any event, we have heard very little about it.  

3	We accept Ms Fletcher-Cooke’s observation that employment is more than about being paid your salary, is well founded.  People get very upset over employment and, looking back over many years of our collective experience, we think it is deeply insulting to people to assume that everybody has their price and it is always a matter of money. It is a matter that goes far beyond money for many people, as to how they are treated at work, and rightly so, and we hope that what difficulties there are can be resolved.  We do not normally go out of our way to say this but we feel very strongly in this case that it is neither in the public interest, that this matter be allowed to continue without real attempts being made to resolve matters.  

4	We are concerned because, although we recognise the constraints of everyone in the public sector, of rising public expectations and diminishing resources, the Respondents have not complied with the Order of Discovery.  There may be very good reasons for doing so, but at the end of the day, Ms Fletcher-Cooke had an Order for that and, although it may be it will not succeed, we can understand her wish to raise that matter at the hearing.  

5	We say, in what we hope is not misunderstood by her to be a patronising way, we suspect the future of this matter is going to be more resolved by looking forwards than looking backwards but, nevertheless, she is free to raise this as the Chairman’s letters say.  

6	Quite simply, we cannot disturb the last Order of the Chairman.  In our experience it would make Ms Fletcher-Cooke’s position worse, not better.  Mr Stilitz, who is an advocate of some considerable experience, suggests that the whole case could not be resolved in the time available.

7	But we do want this case resolved quickly.  The reasons that employment law has, compared with any areas of law such a short period for making a complaint, is simply that these matters should not be allowed to fester.  They should be resolved.  Our own suspicion is that it is not going to be a Tribunal that ultimately resolves what really matters.  

8	The Home Office has withdrawn its appeal because the Chairman has now decided to have only a preliminary issue hearing.  In that Ms Fletcher-Cooke’s opposition contribute a new appeal we dismiss it.