Appeal No.	 EAT/1068/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 24 May 2002

Before
MISS RECORDER E SLADE QC
MR K EDMONDSON JP
MRS D M PALMER

MR E NEGATU	APPELLANT

STORE SECURITY SERVICES	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	The Appellant in person	

MISS RECORDER E SLADE QC

1	This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr Negatu against the Decision of an Employment Tribunal which had before it a number of contract claims brought by Mr Negatu.  He claims that the Employment Tribunal erred on a number of matters related to his claims, including an allegation that the Employment Tribunal used the wrong hourly rate in its calculations, using £4 as opposed to £5.25.  He also complains that the Employment Tribunal erred in its failure to award him a sum of money in respect of seven days when he was at home but not told where he should go to work.  He makes other claims, including claims for lost hours of work when he says he was sent home when the employers were contractually obliged to pay him and keep him at work.  He also makes a claim in respect of Statutory Sick Pay.

2	Our difficulty in considering all of those matters is that whilst Mr Negatu’s claims were contract claims, the Decision of the Employment Tribunal makes no findings as to what the terms of the contract were.  Mr Negatu’s was a contract in which no written particulars had been provided.  That being the case, in our judgment, it makes it all the more important for a Tribunal considering such claims, in its reasons, to make findings as to the relevant contractual terms.  

3	Regrettably, we consider that it is arguable that this Employment Tribunal failed to make necessary findings in its Decision.  Therefore, it can arguably be said to have been made in error of law.  It is, in our judgment, necessary for sufficient findings as to the contractual terms to be made before a careful scrutiny can be made of the complaints about the Decision made by Mr Negatu.  

4	We therefore permit this appeal to proceed to a Full Hearing on the basis that this Employment Tribunal may be said to have erred in law in failing to have given adequate reasons for its Decision.  So far as the other matters raised by Mr Negatu are concerned, as we have said, it is difficult to judge whether they truly do raise errors of law.  It is most unlikely that some do.  For example, the complaint that there should have been pay for the two days that Mr Negatu attended an Employment Tribunal to pursue his own claim against a former employer, but it may be that there are others in which there is justifiable cause for complaint.  

5	We would urge Mr Negatu to seek advice in preparation of an amended Notice of Appeal.  We understand that the help of ELAAS was offered to him this morning, unfortunately he did not avail himself of such assistance.  We give him leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to raise and focus that Notice of Appeal on the real issues raised in this case.  The amended Notice of Appeal should be lodged within twenty one days of today to enable Mr Negatu, if he wishes to do so, to seek advice.