I do not know what percentage of employment tribunal appeals are made under the various grounds of appeal, but I would wager that appeals on the basis that the reasons for the decision are not “Meek compliant” will rank high in the list. Despite the name, it does not mean that the tribunal’s decision is insufficiently timid and agreeable. So, what does it mean and why is it of interest to claimants?
When an employment tribunal gives judgment on a case it will give reasons for its decision. Sometimes those reasons will be given orally at the close of the hearing and if this is done, they may not produce written reasons – but any party can request these within 14 days of the judgment and the tribunal is then obliged to produce them; this is important to do if a claimant is considering an appeal (Rule 62 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013).
When giving reasons for a judgment the requirement is that the
reasons shall: identify the issues which the Tribunal has determined, state the findings of fact made in relation to those issues, concisely identify the relevant law, and state how that law has been applied to those findings in order to decide the issues. Where the judgment includes a financial award the reasons shall identify, by means of a table or otherwise, how the amount to be paid has been calculated.
– Rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
And it is the requirements of Rule 62(5) that the idea of Meek Compliance comes into play. Meek v City of Birmingham District Council (1987) was a decision of the Court of Appeal. Mr Meek had brought a claim of unfair dismissal against his former employer, City of Birmingham Council. He was successful in that claim. The employer appealed the finding of unfair dismissal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal who allowed the appeal on the basis that the decisions were inadequate. That decision was then appealed by Mr Meek to the Court of Appeal.
At the Court of Appeal Mr Meek lost his case but in the course of doing so the Court gave guidance on the standard parties should expect written decisions to include, in the key passages (paras 8 and 13) it found:
It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an Industrial Tribunal is not required to be an elaborate formalistic product of refined legal draftsmanship, but it must contain an outline of the story which has given rise to the complaint and a summary of the Tribunal’s basic factual conclusions and a statement of the reasons which have led them to reach the conclusion which they do on those basic facts. The parties are entitled to be told why they have won or lost. There should be sufficient account of the facts and of the reasoning to enable the EAT or, on further appeal, this court to see whether any question of law arises; and it is highly desirable that the decision of an Industrial Tribunal should give guidance both to employers and trade unions as to practices which should or should not be adopted.
And,
… Judged by those yardsticks, the decision of the Industrial Tribunal did in this case, as the EAT rightly held, fall far short of the minimum necessary. There was no account of the basic story of what had occurred, there was no statement anywhere in the reasons of what the Council believed the employee to have taken of the materials belonging to them or of the nature and the circumstances in which they believed him to have misused their vehicle. There is no account of the questions put to him or the answers given. There is no detailed account of the investigation which was made or of the investigations which, in the judgment of the Tribunal, the Council should have made and did not make. There are various criticisms expressed without any statement of the basic underlying facts upon which those criticisms were based.
– Paragraphs 8 and 13 of Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] EWCA Civ 9.
The principle underlying the judgment are sensible. If a party has lost its case then a fair trial process requires that party to understand why the decision was made the way it was, and what findings of fact were made to justify that decision.
When a claimant loses a claim there is often an immediate desire to respond and appeal immediately, that is rarely a good idea. A claimant has 42 days to lodge an appeal and it is a good idea to use that to reflect on the actual decisions as objectively as possible. But what if upon reading the decisions it does not look like key legal issues the tribunal was required have been addressed (which is not the same as issues a claimant wanted them to consider)? If there are then it is at least worth considering if there are grounds for pursuing an appeal on “meek compliance“ grounds.
In the case of Meek the decision went against the claimant with the result that the finding that there was an unfair dismissal was overturned (the case was remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal – as Employment Tribunals used to be called – to be heard anew).
The EAT have consistently given quite a latitude to employment tribunal reasons and reading decisions in the round claiming that it is wrong to apply a ‘counsel of perfection’ to reasons. However, it remains the case that if there is a core legal issue in the case and the findings or legal reasoning for decisions have not been laid out then that is a potential error of law which justifies a party seeking an appeal. For employers who are legally represented their lawyers will often review this issue as a matter of course but for claimants (who are much more likely to be taking a case on their own) a good first step when receiving reasons for decision is not so much to think about why the reasons are wrong (that can happen later) but first, do the reasons explain why it made the decision it did in all key areas. Comparing the reasons to any list of issues prepared before the hearing can be a useful way to do this.
After all, if you lose your case it is only fair that you understand why that decision was taken so you can try to consider if they are fair or (which is also key) at least feel that your complaints have been heard. If you have been deprived that right to understand the reasons a negative decision has been made, then there is a chance the decisions are appealable because they do not meet the standards Rule 62(5) and – before that – Meek expects of them.
___
If you have found this post helpful, would you consider donating £3 (or any other amount) to me help cover website fees and keep my head above water. Absolutely no pressure intended though, whether you can or not thanks for reading! Payments can be made at https://ko-fi.com/employmentwrite or by Paypal.
Want to stay updated?
This blog is specifically for the benefit of trade union reps and members. If you are not a union member then now is a good time to put that right. If you work for central government or a NDPB please join the PCS union today. Otherwise, the TUC offers help selecting the right union to join (although feel free to message me if you’re unsure about what’s best).
If you are among the number of employment law solicitors and paralegals who
work in the legal sector and follow this blog why not join the Legal Sector Workers United (LSWU)?
If you have found this post or site helpful please think about subscribing to the email list by entering your email address below, liking the blog on Facebook, or following on Twitter @employmentwrite.
Employment Writes 