Judge McMullen QC: Judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

I attended an Appeal against the Employment Tribunal decision to throw out my case as I believed they had broken the law and acted in a way they would not be expected to act. I was not impressed by the judge at all.

The Judge listened to my case such as: the Tribunal had accepted my case for extended time as I had produced strong evidence such as Medical, witness statements and Health & Safety documents to prove the company was responsible for the claim being late.

That company then stated to the tribunal they denied all claims. A few days later, they applied to have the case thrown out as it was late. I stated to Judge McMullen QC that this was illegal as a company cannot accuse a former employee of lying and producing fraudulent documents for the case then ask for the case to be thrown out on a technicality. I claimed that after the company had accused the worker of falsifying the claim, the Tribunal had a duty to hear the case to determine which side was lying to them.

Judge McMullen stated he was ruling that the actions of the company were acceptable, stating with a smile, that is what you would call a two pronged response. I state that is what I would call illegal or something that should not be tolerated by a responsible Tribunal or Judge. At least Judge McMullen clearly made his ruling and put his name to it.

The next point raised was that I claimed it was illegal, or was not what would be expected of Ms Garvie, that chaired the Pre-Hearing at the Tribunal, to state the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case as it was late. This, I stated, was false as the Tribunal does have the jurisdiction to hear the case under the Just and Equitable rule as that rule does not have a time limit.

Judge McMullen stated he was ruling on this point that it was not illegal and that Ms Garvie had not acted in a way should not have concerning that statement. Again, Judge McMullen clearly stated his ruling and put his name to it. I again disagree with his decision and mean to look into it further.

The next point was: someone from the Glasgow Tribunal office had phoned the solicitor acting for the employer over them not complying with an additional information order that was needed to prove conclusively there were good reasons for my claim being late. That solicitor then emailed me stating they were going to comply with that order, that day, after they had received the phone call from the Tribunal. The following day, the Tribunal sent a document stating the company had applied to set aside the Additional Information Order till after the Pre-Hearing and that they were allowing this.

Judge McMullen stated that in some cases he would have ruled those actions as being illegal but in this case was ruling it was not illegal. Again he clearly stated his ruling and was prepared to put his name to it. I again disagree with his ruling and intend looking into the matter further. I state, that in all cases, this is unacceptable and illegal.

The next point was that the solicitors acting on behalf of the employer turned up at the Pre-Hearing, that they asked for, without the case documents that I was instructed to send to the employer at least 14 days before the Per-Hearing.

Judge McMullen stated that he was ruling this was not illegal or that the tribunal had acted in a way they should not have by allowing this without question. I again state this was illegal and seemed to me to show the phone calls between the tribunal and employer gave the employer the impression they only had to turn up at the Pre-Hearing and win the case.

On the general summing up of the case, Judge McMullen rambled on about the three month time limit rule concerning constructive dismissal claims. I had to explain to the Judge my claim clearly stated it was made under the Just and Equitable rule where there is no time limit.

Judge McMullen replied he was aware of that fact as he was responsible for a case that was nine years late. Judge McMullen stated that case concerned Race Discrimination and that he approved the extended time. Judge McMullen then stated that my case simply did not have a good enough reason to have time extended.

Finally, I got a direct, relevant answer concerning my case. My claim was made under the understanding that it was late because my employer was responsible for damaging my health by contaminating me with dangerous chemicals for many years, had dismissed the medical firm that was monitoring the workforce and hid their medical files, lied to the Health and Safety over the chemicals they used and how they used them, this extending the time it took to find out the truth, and gave false information to doctors treating me that led to more test having to be carried out than should have been necessary.

When I asked Judge McMullen if he had actually read my case documents, he failed to reply so I stated he was not in a position to state I had not a good enough reason to have time extended. Also, I stated to Judge McMullen that as he had not seen the Additional Information Documents that the company withheld from the Tribunal, he was not in a position to make such a statement.

Judge McMullen responded to that statement by hastily bringing an end to the fiasco/hearing.

I got the impression that the person taking notes at the hearing, Ms X, was responsible for the report Judge McMullen was reading out as when I was making my case, Judge McMullen used a yellow highlight pen to highlight certain points I raised, and each time he used the highlight pen, he gave Ms X a glare that seemed to show his concern over those matters and that she had something to do with them. It looked to me like Ms X had produced the report and Judge McMullen was just putting his name to it.

This case seems to have shown that if you have been a victim of Race Discrimination, you have a better chance of having time extended than if your health has been damaged by your work place.

I would like to ask the Employment Appeals Tribunal in Edinburgh: how many appeals do they get each year and how many they dismiss. I would put my money on 100%.