Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Larrea v Post Office [1991] UKEAT 156_90_1706 (17 June 1991)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1991/156_90_1706.html
Cite as: [1991] UKEAT 156_90_1706
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
(INTERNAL)
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MS S R CORBY
MR J A POWELL
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO ATTENDANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an Appeal by way of a Preliminary Hearing by Mr Larrea against a Decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting in London (North) under the Chairmanship of Mrs Don, who after two day's hearing in December 1989 and January 1990 dismissed his application of unfair dismissal.
The Respondents were the Post Office and the reason for the dismissal was found to be gross misconduct on the part of Mr Larrea.
As it is a Preliminary Hearing with only one side present, we must decide whether the case should go to a full hearing on a point of law. We are thus looking to see whether there is any error of law in the Decision of the Tribunal.
Mr Larrea does not attend although he has been notified of this Hearing. However, in the circumstances it is our practice to give very short reasons for the decision we have reached.
Mr Larrea's attendance at work, at the Post Office, was intermittent over a period of time and the matters came to a head in the latter part of 1988 and the early part of 1989 after he had suffered an injury at work on the 28th November 1988. He saw his own doctor; he saw the Post Office doctor and there arose questions as to whether or not he was suitable to return to work.
In a memorandum of the 6th April 1989 the Post Office doctor expressed the opinion that he was capable of performing sorting duty and code sort but should not attempt any heavy lifting i.e. bagging. As a result of that Mr Larrea was instructed to attend for work, he did not do so.
The Tribunal heard his evidence; they heard evidence from the Post Office, they took the view that perhaps Mr Larrea was really wanting to obtain a different, an improved position, and was using his ill-health and injury as a lever to that end. They rejected his explanation and his evidence and they found that the reason for the dismissal was the refusal to arrive at work. They found that that decision was reached upon reasonable evidence and indeed they recalled in paragraph 16 that in answer to a question from the Tribunal the Applicant did say that his doctor agreed with him as to his ability to return to work.
They noted other various matters which were tended against the Applicant's case and reached the conclusion that the dismissal was reasonable. There is no vestige of misdirection or an error of law in the Decision, this Appeal is quite hopeless and is dismissed at this stage.