MR A J GRAHAM v PLUMSTEAD LAW CENTRE [2000] UKEAT 848_00_2411

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2000] UKEAT 848_00_2411Case No Appeal No. EAT/848/00Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR A J GRAHAMAPPELLANTPLUMSTEAD LAW CENTRERESPONDENT
Before
His Honour Judge D M LevyDate 24 November 2000
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MS V BURNHAM (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme JUDGE D M LEVY QC These are proceedings against the Plumstead Law Centre by an IT received there on 24 June 1999, claiming discrimination under the Race Relations Act . The Respondent in his IT1 claimed in paragraph of its IT3 that:
"3. As to Mr Graham's specific complaint namely that he was stopped from standing for the Management Committee……is outside the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal, since it does not concern paid employment"
[2]There was a hearing on this issue by a Tribunal sitting at Ashford, Kent, on 28 April 2000. The decision was sent to the parties on 11 May 2000. The Applicant, the Appellant here, appeared in person. He sought a review of the decision but his application was dismissed on the grounds that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it, by reason of the provisions of section 54(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 .[3]From that decision the Appellant appeals. Although the Employment Tribunal has referred to section 54(2) of the Race Relations Act , we have considered the material provisions of the Act. Section 8(1) provides:
"For the purposes of this Part ("the relevant purposes") employment is to be regarded as being at an establishment in Great Britain, unless the employee does his work wholly …….outside Great Britain" and the interpretation of provisions in section 78 states: " employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, or a contract personally to execute any work or labour, and related expressions shall be construed accordingly."
[4]Having looked at those definitions, we entirely agree with the Employment Tribunal that they did have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Mr Graham has represented himself this morning and he has had the assistance of ELAAS sitting by his side, who has kindly referred us to this section of the Act. We are satisfied that there is no point to go forward on this appeal. We understand that Mr Graham has strong feelings about the situation, but these are not matters which we are entitled to consider in this Tribunal of this appeal. We will therefore dismiss this appeal at this stage.