Appeal No.	 EAT/976/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 24 January 2002

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BELL
MR K EDMONDSON JP
MR A E R MANNERS

MR H HONG	APPELLANT

ABBEY COACHWORKS LIMITED	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR SHELLY GRIFFITH
(Representative)
Shepherds Bush Advice Centre
338 Uxbridge Road
London
W12 7LL	

MR JUSTICE BELL:

1.	This is the Preliminary Hearing in respect of the Appeal of Mr Hong against the decision of the Employment Tribunal, held at London North, promulgated with Extended Reasons on the 29th June 2001 and sent to the parties on the 2nd July 2001, that first the Applicant was fairly dismissed on grounds of redundancy and his application for unfair dismissal failed and second that the Applicant unreasonably refused an offer of suitable employment made following his being declared redundant in his previous position and was therefore not entitled to a redundancy payment. Quantification of pay in lieu of the eleven weeks notice he should have received was put over to another hearing. 

2.	It is unnecessary to relate in any detail, or indeed at all, the background and reasoning of the Tribunal. Suffice to say, for today’s purposes, that it was arguably an important conclusion of the Tribunal that the consultation process was sufficient, although the Tribunal found some shortcomings in what occurred.

3.	One of the points made by Mr Griffiths, to whom we are grateful for his attendance under the auspices of the Free Representation Unit, is that the Tribunal’s findings in respect of the extent of consultation were perverse, in that they were inconsistent with the terms of the witness statement of Mr Peter Edward Levis, a director of the Respondent, and with the Respondent’s Opening Note.

4.	In Mr Levis’s statement appears at paragraph 21:

“The urgency of the closure of the Acton plant meant that there was no time for consultation to take place but in any event there was simply no point in consulting as to its closure; there was no economic alternative. I confirm that there was no recognised trade union at the Acton plant”. 

5.	In the Respondent’s Opening Note there appears at paragraph 17: 

“It is accepted that there was no consultation. On the particular facts of this case (a) a reasonable employer could have concluded that consultation could make no difference and (b) consultation would in any event have made no difference whether to the closure of the plant  or to the termination of the Applicants contract of employment”.

6.	These statements may have been directed at the closure of the Acton plant rather than what should happen to the Applicant, and obviously the Tribunal heard more evidence about the extent of any consultation in that respect. It is arguable that it was entitled to reach the view that the Applicant from the very start set his face against working at the Wembley plant, which was the alternative place of employment once it was decided to close the Respondent’s Acton plant down, but we do consider that the point (a) as to the arguable inconsistency between the Tribunal’s findings and what appears in the Opening Note and Mr Levis’ witness statement justifies this matter going to a Full Hearing.

7.	The other Grounds of Appeal both with regard to unfair dismissal and redundancy payment are potentially intertwined with that point or arguably so to some extent and we therefore allow the appeal to go ahead on all the Grounds of Appeal drafted by Mr Griffith. The case should be Category C with a time estimate of half a day.

8.	In the light of the nature of the argument, it appears to us that notes of evidence of Mr Hong, as to the evidence he gave concerning his personal circumstances, Mr Levis with regard to the extent of consultation, and Mr Lockwood as to his awareness, if such it was, of Mr Hong’s personal circumstances, may assist the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the hearing of the appeal. It seems to us that it would be dangerous to ask for parts only of the notes of evidence of those witnesses, so we respectfully invite the Chairman to provide his notes of the evidence of all three witnesses for the purposes of the appeal.