Appeal No. PA/1454/02 SM

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 7 March 2003

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
(SITTING ALONE)

DR PERICLES GRAMBAS	APPELLANT

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

APPEAL UNDER RULE 3 (10)

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	DR PERICLES GRAMBAS
(the Appellant in Person)	

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

1	By a Notice of Appeal dated 11 November 2002 the Appellant, Dr Grambas, appealed against a decision of the London (Central) Employment Tribunal, promulgated with Extended Reasons on 9 October 2002 dismissing his complaints of unfair dismissal, racial discrimination and victimisation, brought against his former employer the British Broadcasting Corporation (“BBC”).  Those reasons are comprehensive extending to 33 pages.

2	On 2 January 2003 the Registrar wrote to the Appellant indicating under Rule 3 (7) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules of Procedure that in her view the Appeal Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, our jurisdiction being limited to correcting errors of law by Employment Tribunals: see the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 section 21 (1).  Consequently, the Appellant served fresh grounds of appeal and the matter was referred to me for a hearing under Rule 3 (10).

3	The Appellant, who has appeared in person today, wishes to take essentially three points which are identified in the revised grounds of appeal.  First, he submits that the Tribunal was wrong in law to rule, as it did in paragraph 39 of their Reasons, that the complaints of discrimination made by the Appellant in relation to a period of employment with the Greek section of the BBC, were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

4	The position is that he commenced employment originally with the BBC in 1991 and was employed in the Greek section from 1994 until that employment terminated on 8 January 1999.  He was then re-employed in the World Service with effect from 12 July 1999.  That employment eventually being terminated on 31 January 2001.  He presented his Originating Application in this case on 15 March 2001.
5	Prior to termination of his employment in the Greek section he had raised a grievance relating to his treatment on racial grounds and that grievance had not been resolved by the date on which his employment in the Greek section terminated.  It was eventually resolved in May 1999; a grievance based on the complaint of discrimination was not upheld.

6	In these circumstances it seems to me that the Tribunal was plainly entitled to conclude that the Originating Application was out of time, so far as complaints relating to treatment in the Greek section are concerned, and Dr Grambas does not challenge that finding.

7	The question then for the Tribunal was whether it was just and equitable to extend time.  In paragraph 39 they record that “no reason or reasons were canvassed in favour of the Tribunal exercising its discretion” in Dr Grambas’s favour.

8	In these circumstances, it seems to me inevitable that that part of the claim would be ruled out of time.

9	Secondly, he has referred me to the six comparators who are identified at page 23 of the Tribunal’s reasons, paragraphs (e.4) to (j.4) and he wishes to argue on appeal that it is plain from their length of service compared with his that he was less favourably treated than one or more of those comparators; a finding which the Tribunal declined to make: see paragraph 44 of their Reasons.

10	It seems to me that that is a pure question of fact for the Employment Tribunal and this complaint discloses no point of law.

11	Thirdly, he seeks to invoke the provisions of Article 48 (2) of the Treaty of Rome, by reference to a comparison between himself and Mr Thomas Dahlhaus, a German national who was given a permanent contract by the BBC in January 1998.  No such offer, he points out, was ever made to him; and he makes a comparison between himself, a Greek national and naturalised British citizen and Mr Dahlhaus, a German national.

12	The difficulty with that submission is that it appears that Dr Grambas only learned of Mr Dahlhaus’s position during the course of this Tribunal hearing.  In these circumstances, the Court of Appeal has made clear it is incumbent on a party who wishes to advance an additional head of complaint arising out of something which he discovered during the course of a hearing, to apply at the time for that complaint to be added to his existing complaints.  He accepts that he made no such application; and although he has referred me to his written final submissions which indeed make a reference to Mr Dahlhaus, I am not persuaded that that particular complaint was properly before the Tribunal.  The obligation on parties is to bring the whole of their complaint before the court at the appropriate hearing: Divine-Bortey
v London Borough of Brent [1998] IRLR 525.

13	In these circumstances, I revert to the question as to whether or not this appeal raises a point of law or points of law which give this Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain it.  In my judgment they do not.  Accordingly I uphold the Registrar’s decision that the EAT has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and I shall direct that no further action be taken on the appeal.