United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> O'Neill v Borough Council Of Wellingborough [1993] UKEAT 214_91_1502 (15 February 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/214_91_1502.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 214_91_1502

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 214_91_1502

Appeal No. EAT/214/91

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 15 February 1993

Judgment delivered on 25 February 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAY

MR T S BATHO

MRS T MARSLAND

MRS A E O'NEILL APPELLANT

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR ROBIN ALLEN

(OF COUNSEL)

Messrs Burnhams

Solicitors

1 High Street

Wellingborough

NN8 4HS

For the Respondents MR J R MCMANUS

(OF COUNSEL)

Borough Solicitor

Borough Council of Wellingborough

Council Offices

Swanspool

Wellingborough

Northants NN8 1BP

MR JUSTICE MAY: This is an appeal by Mrs O'Neill from the decision of an Industrial Tribunal at Bedford after hearings on 15 June 1990 and 4th and 5th March 1991. The decision, sent to the parties on 18 March 1991, was that Mrs O'Neill had not been discriminated against by the respondents on the ground of sex or race and her application was dismissed.

Mrs O'Neill, who is Egyptian by birth, came to England in 1983 following her marriage to an Englishman. In 1987 she decided to train as a meat inspector and attended a course run by the Smithfield College of Meat and Technology. In the latter part of 1988, she passed her examination and qualified as a meat inspector. She also became a member of the Royal Society of Health.

In September 1989, she applied to the Respondents for the post of authorised meat inspector. She was not called for interview, but was later informed that she had been unsuccessful. The post was readvertised and in November 1989 she reapplied. She was interviewed but was later informed that she had been unsuccessful. When she had been working at the Wellingborough, she had noticed that all those dealing with meat were white males. She also complained that her interview had only lasted 10 minutes whereas other candidates were interviewed for longer. She complained to the Industrial Tribunal that she had been unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of her sex and race.

The Respondents in their Notice of Appearance denied discrimination on either ground. They stated that, on the first occasion that the post was advertised, there were only three applicants, only one of whom was interviewed. Mrs O'Neill was not selected for interview because of reports received by the Respondents from the senior meat inspectors at the ABP Wellingborough and Blisworth abattoirs. Mrs O'Neill had spent part of her training at Blisworth and in 1988 had been given permission to attend at Wellingborough also for training. The report from Wellingborough was that she had been unreliable in her arranged attendances and that when she had attended she had shown little interest in the meat inspection duties. The report from Blisworth was that she had shown lack of interest, did not listen to instructions and was unreliable in her attendance. The Respondents stated that there were seven applicants from the second advertisement. Two were ruled out straight away. One did not attend the interview because of the weather. The other four, including Mrs O'Neill, were interviewed. The Respondents stated that the candidates were assessed on their knowledge and experience of meat inspection and that it was decided to offer the post to a Mr I Jones who had been employed as an authorised meat inspector at various places since 1965. Mr Jones provisionally accepted the offer, but then withdrew because of difficulties in moving from Newark to Wellingborough. The post was then offered to and accepted by a Mrs Bradley. This last offer occurred after Mrs O'Neill had made her complaint of discrimination to the Industrial Tribunal.

The Industrial Tribunal heard evidence and considered a number of documents including the application forms of the various candidates following the two advertisements. They then found facts which it is necessary to set out at length as follows:

"(i) As has already been indicated, the applicant came to England in 1983. She is Egyptian by birth, and in her application form her history is clearly set out. She worked in Egypt as a veterinary surgeon, holding various appointments, and after 1983 she had 2 children. She attempted to obtain an English qualification as a veterinary surgeon but failed, and having failed at that she turned her attention to meat inspection. She was facing great domestic difficulties, both by reason of her family and by reason of lack of money, but she persisted and she put in the 250 hours necessary for her qualification at 3 different slaughter houses at Blisworth, Wooton and Wellingborough. She obtained her qualification at the second attempt in October 1988, but at the time of answering the advertisements she had not obtained a post.

(ii) When the post was first advertised there was a disappointing response - only 3 applications were received. The applicant's application was in fact received late, but it was accepted nevertheless. It was Mr Hunter's job, in consultation with Mr Jones, to arrange the short listing. [Mr Jones was at the time Environmental Health Officer with the Respondents and Mr Hunter was a senior Environmental Health Officer.] Mr Hunter recommended to Mr Jones that of the three applicants it was only necessary to interview one. One of the applicants had already been interviewed by the respondents. They had formed an adverse view on that occasion, and Mr Jones and Mr Hunter saw no point in interviewing him again. The second applicant, No 13 in the bundle, they considered was head and shoulders above the others. He was a young man with an outstanding academic record, although he lacked experience. As far as the applicant in this case was concerned, Mr Hunter, as he told us in evidence, was entirely influenced by reports that he had received from Mr Sutton and Mr Fussey. He had worked with Mr Sutton every day. Mr Sutton had been in charge of the slaughterhouse at Wellingborough where the applicant had done some of her training. Mr Hunter made contact with Mr Fussey at Blisworth [where he was senior authorised meat inspector]. He knew where the applicant had done the first part of her training, because she had been sent on to them by Mr Fussey; it was necessary in her training to deal with as many different types of carcass as possible, and different types of carcass were handled at Blisworth and Wellingborough.

(iii) Mr Hunter's evidence was as follows: Mr Fussey had told him that the applicant had spent a number of days with him. Her attendance was very irregular; in fact she had ceased attending at one stage without warning. He found out later that she had been to another plant and then returned for further training. She had difficulty in accepting instructions, and lacked interest in the job of meat inspection. He also spoke to Mr Sutton; he had spoken to Mr Fussey on the telephone, but as I have said, he was in daily contact with Mr Sutton. He told him that she lacked interest, and he questioned whether she was really suitable for a post of authorised meat inspector in a team in a factory situation. Mr Hunter's impression was that Mr Sutton felt that she would not fit in a team working on a line in view of the monotonous nature of the work. He was concerned that she had not made full use of the facilities; she had short periods of attendance and attended only 50% of the available time. Mr Sutton felt that she had an attitude of knowing it all from her veterinary background. His impression was that she was there just to get in the hours, not for the value of the training. Mr Hunter explained to us that he obtained the opinions of Mr Fussey and Mr Sutton because the applicant had not given names, for reference purposes, of anybody where she had been employed or for that matter where she had trained as a meat inspector. As far as the monotony of the job was concerned, we understand that the large slaughterhouse where the successful candidate would have worked at Wellingborough processes some two and a half thousand lambs every day, and that the normal shift of an authorised meat inspector is some 3 hours. There were 4 inspection stations. One authorised meat inspector stands at each station, presumably examining different parts of the carcass.

(iv) These reports with people with whom the applicant worked clearly made a deep impression. Mr Jones tells us that, when he discussed the matter with Mr Hunter, he had studied the application forms as well and that it was on the basis both of the relative merits shown by the application forms and the reports of Mr Sutton and Mr Fussey via Mr Hunter that he decided that she would not be short listed. Mr Hunter, as I have said, tells us that his decision was based entirely on these reports, and we feel that that was indeed the stronger influence of the two.

(v) The successful applicant never took up the post. We are told that candidates for this type of post often put in more than one application at the same time and he presumably had found a more attractive offer elsewhere.

(vi) In view of the disappointing response to the first advertisement the respondents advertised again; they regraded the job, increasing the salary of their staff of authorised meat inspectors, and increasing the salary advertised for the job. As a result of this, the second time they had seven applications. As has been noticed in the Notice of Appearance, for one reason or another they only interviewed 4; one of them was the applicant. We were told that Mr Jones and Mr Hunter between them decided to short list the applicant on this occasion because of her persistence and determination. She was interviewed before Mr Scott, Mr Jones and Mr Hunter. [Mr Scott was the respondent's personnel officer.] Following this interview she was not offered the job.

(vii) The successful candidate on this occasion was a very much older man than the candidate who had been successful the first time. He had considerable experience as a meat inspector, dating back to 1965. We were told that the meat inspectors at Wellingborough are a young team, and it was thought to be an advantage to have somebody with experience. Unfortunately, this second successful candidate also failed to take up the appointment - in his case there were relocation difficulties, and the respondents were left to select somebody again.

(viii) They did not hold fresh interviews; they already had their records and recollection of the original interviews. One of the persons interviewed had almost disqualified himself by stipulating that he had to have a salary at the top of the range, and for that reason they did not consider him a second time. The only two candidates remaining were the applicant and Mrs Bradley. The three members of the panel discussed the matter again, and they decided to appoint Mrs Bradley. She had not had a very great experience of red meat; she had had rather more experience of poultry; and she had a good reference from a previous employer. The applicant again was unsuccessful. At the time of Mrs Bradley's appointment the applicant had already complained to this tribunal."

The Tribunal noted that, since Mrs Bradley was, of course, a woman there could be no question of sex discrimination at the final stage.

There are further factual findings in other parts of the Tribunal's Full Reasons as follows:

"We feel that it was very largely the reports by Mr Sutton and Mr Fussey which influenced Mr Hunter and the rest of the panel at all three stages of the selection process. Mr Sutton's and Mr Fussey's opinions were sought because the applicant had not put the names of any previous employer or any person involved in her training as a meat inspector in her application form. It was in our view her misfortune that she had done some of her training at Wellingborough and the rest nearby. The other applicants had suitable references, but there was nobody in Mr Sutton's and Mr Fussey's position who could give personal accounts of their training to the panel. It is not for us to decide whether the applicant was treated unfairly. The fact that the criticisms made by Mr Sutton and Mr Fussey were never put to the applicant at any stage would, of course, be highly relevant if we had to decide whether she was unfairly treated. It is clear, we feel, that as a result of these reports she was treated less favourably than all the other applicants.

We are unable to accept the evidence that these reports were put out of the panel's minds when they came to the second and third stages. We feel that these criticisms were in the forefront of their minds. We are doubtful about the reasons given to us for interviewing the applicant on the second occasion. It seems to us that the reasons for not interviewing her on the first occasion still held good. The applicant felt that the respondents were just going through the motions. We can quite understand that reaction. What we have to decide, however, is not whether she was treated unfairly, but whether she was treated less favourably on the ground of sex or race.

We accept the evidence that this is a white male dominated occupation. Mr Jones did in fact appoint a woman meat inspector in 1987, but she never took up her post, and there are no women working in the slaughterhouse. We have heard little evidence about race, but we accept that the majority of people working in slaughterhouses are men and are English. The applicant clearly feels very strongly that she was well qualified, and that the fact that she was not appointed must be due either to her race or to her sex. The evidence has shown that she considers her background as a veterinary surgeon of great value and of great relevance. The people interviewing her, however, and also, of course, Mr Sutton and Mr Fussey, who did not interview her, clearly do not have the same regard for experience as a veterinary surgeon. It was said that the meat inspectors resented her; she reminded them from time to time that she was a qualified vet and had practised as such."

Taking account of a possible ambiguity in the last sentence of the first of these three paragraphs, we consider that it is clear that in substance the Tribunal were holding as a fact that the panel were influenced "very largely" at all three stages of the selection process by the reports of Mr Sutton and Mr Fussey. They were refraining from making a direct finding that Mrs O'Neill had been unfairly treated because her interview had been perfunctory and because Mr Sutton's and Mr Fussey's criticisms were not put to her, but they were making it obvious that they thought that there would have been considerable force in such contentions had they considered them to be directly relevant.

The Tribunal directed themselves by citing a passage from the judgment of May L.J. in North West Thames Regional Health Authority v Noone [1988] ICR 822 as follows:

"... the proper approach to the question whether there has been a case of discrimination on racial grounds is well established by authority. The first step is to decide whether or not there has been an act of discrimination at all; the next is to decide whether or not there was a difference in race; then one must consider whether there is any positive evidence which supports an allegation of discrimination on racial grounds. The appeal tribunal correctly commented that this is notoriously difficult to find. They referred to Khanna v Ministry of Defence [1981] ICR 653, holding that that case was authority for the proposition that, where the primary facts indicate a discrimination and a difference of race, then the employer is called upon to give an explanation. If this is inadequate or, still more, is patently unsatisfactory or untrue, then it is open to the tribunal to draw the inference that the discrimination was on racial grounds."

The Tribunal did not cite further from May L.J.'s judgment, but we notice that, in the immediately following passage he said that he did not find Khanna's case altogether satisfactory and then said:

"In these cases of alleged racial discrimination, it is always for the complainant to make out his or her case. It is not often that there is direct evidence of racial discrimination, and these complaints more often than not have to be dealt with on the basis of what are the proper inferences to be drawn from the primary facts. For myself I would have thought that it was almost common sense that, if there is a finding of discrimination and of difference of race and then an inadequate or unsatisfactory explanation by the employer for the discrimination, usually the legitimate inference will be that the discrimination was on racial grounds."

The Tribunal noted that Noone's case concerned discrimination on the ground of race. They took it that the test in a sex discrimination case was similar. Mr Allen, who appeared before us on behalf of Mrs O'Neill, has not submitted otherwise.

The Tribunal recorded the submission of Miss Hyde, who appeared before them on behalf of Mrs O'Neill, as being that the proper inference to be drawn from the evidence was that the applicant had been discriminated against either on the ground of sex or race or possibly both. They summarised Miss Hyde's submissions at length.

The Tribunal's conclusion is reached in the final paragraph of its Reasons as follows:

"We have to ask ourselves what evidence there is that she was discriminated against on the ground of her race or sex. Apart from the general feeling that this is a white male oriented occupation, there is very little evidence indeed. We entirely accept the doctrine laid down by Noone's case in the Court of Appeal; if we do not draw inferences in this sort of case there would be very few successful applications on the ground of sex discrimination or race discrimination. We do draw inferences from the evidence whenever we feel that this is permissible. In this case although we have listened very carefully to the evidence and have been through the documents in great detail, we do not consider that there is sufficient evidence of sex or racial discrimination for us to draw inferences in this case that the applicant was discriminated against on either ground. As I have said before, we can well understand the applicant's feelings about her failure to obtain these posts, and if we had to judge fairness or unfairness our decision might be very different. We are not concerned with that however. We are concerned with an allegation of discrimination, and, as Mr McManus [Counsel for the respondents] points out, this is for the applicant to prove. We do not consider that there is sufficient evidence for us to draw an inference of sex or race discrimination. This complaint must therefore be dismissed."

The first ground of appeal in Mrs O'Neill's Notice of Appeal is in substance that the Tribunal were perverse in not reaching the factual conclusion that there had been discrimination. It is said there that no reasonable Tribunal properly directing itself on the law could have come to the conclusion that it did, having made the findings of fact which it did and basing itself on the evidence. The Notice then makes extensive reference to the facts found and the evidence. In argument before us, Mr Allen did not strive to support this unvarnished approach. He submitted rather that the way in which the Tribunal addressed the crucial question was wrong in law. His main contention was that we should remit the case for further consideration upon a correct legal basis.

We remind ourselves that section 1(1)(a) of the Race Relations Act 1976 provides:

"A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purpose of any provision of this Act if -

(a)on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons ..."

Section 1(1)(a) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is in equivalent terms. Section 4 of the 1976 Act provides:

"It is unlawful for a person, in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against another -

(a)in the arrangements he makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment; or

(b) ...; or

(c)by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer him that employment."

Section 6 of the 1975 Act is in equivalent terms.

Mr Allen drew our attention to King v Great Britain-China Centre [1992] ICR 517, a decision of the Court of Appeal given after the Tribunal's decision in Mrs O'Neill's case. He invited us to read the entire report which we did. Neill L.J. gave the leading judgment with which Nourse L.J. and Sir John Megaw agreed. The case concerned a complaint of discrimination on the ground of race. The Industrial Tribunal found by a majority that the appellant, who had been born in China, had been discriminated against, holding that the employers had failed to prove that they had been justified in not calling her for interview. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had held that the majority of the Tribunal had erred in law in placing the burden of proof on the employers to disprove discrimination and remitted the case. In allowing the applicant's appeal, the Court of Appeal held that, when considering inferences to be drawn from the facts, it was permissible and did not reverse the evidential burden of proof for the Tribunal to require the employer to give an explanation for discrimination and, in the absence of any satisfactory answer, to infer that it had been on racial grounds. At page 526, Neill L.J. reviewed the authorities including among others Khanna's case, Chattopadhyay v Headmaster of Holloway School [1982] ICR 132, Morris v London Iron and Steel Co Ltd [1987] ICR 855 and Noone's case, and in substance noted a differing emphasis at least in judicial dicta relating to the burden of proof in discrimination cases. Then at page 528E, Neill L.J. said this:

"In the course of argument we were referred to other recent cases including Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v Camara [1988] ICR 865; Baker v Cornwall County Council [1990] ICR 452 and the valuable judgment of Wood J. in the appeal tribunal in British Gas plc v Sharma [1991] ICR 19. From these several authorities it is possible, I think, to extract the following principles and guidance. (1) It is for the applicant who complains of racial discrimination to make out his or her case. Thus if the applicant does not prove the case on the balance of probabilities he or she will fail. (2) It is important to bear in mind that it is unusual to find direct evidence of racial discrimination. Few employers will be prepared to admit such discrimination even to themselves. In some cases the discrimination will not be ill-intentioned but merely based on an assumption that "he or she would not have fitted in." (3) The outcome of the case will therefore usually depend on what inferences it is proper to draw from the primary facts found by the tribunal. These inferences can include, in appropriate cases, any inferences that it is just and equitable to draw in accordance with section 65(2)(b) of the [Race Relations Act 1976] from an evasive or equivocal reply to a questionnaire. (4) Though there will be some cases where, for example, the non-selection of the applicant for a post or for promotion is clearly not on racial grounds, a finding of discrimination and a finding of a difference in race will often point to the possibility of racial discrimination. In such circumstances the tribunal will look to the employer for an explanation. If no explanation is then put forward or if the tribunal considers the explanation to be inadequate or unsatisfactory it will be legitimate for the tribunal to infer that the discrimination was on racial grounds. This is not a matter of law but, as May L.J. put it in North West Thames Regional Health Authority v Noone [1988] ICR 813, 822, "almost common sense." (5) It is unnecessary and unhelpful to introduce the concept of a shifting evidential burden of proof. At the conclusion of all the evidence the tribunal should make findings as to the primary facts and draw such inferences as they consider proper from those facts. They should then reach a conclusion on the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind both the difficulties which face a person who complains of unlawful discrimination and the fact that it is for the complainant to prove his or her case."

Mr McManus for the respondents accepts that this passage states the law to be applied to the case before us and makes no point of substance from the fact that the decision was not available to the Industrial Tribunal. Mr Allen for his part does not seek to say that the Tribunal misdirected themselves on the law, since he accepts that the citation from Noone's case which we have set out sufficiently contains the relevant law as it was and is. What he does submit is that in their conclusion they wrongly applied the law which they had correctly cited. In particular he submits that:

(a)in finding that there was no sufficient evidence of discrimination for them to draw inferences, the Tribunal were wrongly putting themselves into the first limb of the first sentence of Neill L.J.'s principle (4), whereas they should from the primary facts have arrived in the second limb and concluded that there was "the possibility of racial discrimination". They thus wrongly fettered their ability to draw inferences.

(b)in reaching their conclusion, they failed to consider the respondents' explanations to determine whether they were adequate or satisfactory and thus failed to ask themselves relevant questions which both May L.J. in Noone's case and Neill L.J. in King's case regarded as "common sense". Where are the findings, asks Mr Allen rhetorically, that the respondents' explanations are (a) accepted as facts and (b) found to be sufficient to displace what in the absence of any explanation would probably be the inference?

(c)in failing to determine whether Mrs O'Neill had been unfairly treated, they denied themselves an essential ingredient from the facts from which they had to determine proper inferences. Mr Allen submits that this was particularly relevant to an assessment of the respondents' explanations. The Tribunal expressed a strong sense of unease about the fairness of Mrs O'Neill's treatment. He submits that, if there was unfair treatment, that would be a strong indication that there had been unlawful discrimination. He described this point in reply as the core of the case.

Mr Allen submits that this all adds up to a fundamental error of approach in law such that the failure to draw an inference that there was unlawful discrimination was perverse.

Mr McManus, as we have said, accepts that the law to be applied is as stated by Neill L.J. in King's case, but submits that there is no legal straight jacket and that there is no rule of law as to the precise way in which an Industrial Tribunal should approach its fact finding task. Mr McManus drew our attention to a passage in the judgment of Wood J. in Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v Camara [1988] ICR 865 at 879C where he said:

"We emphasise that in these racial discrimination cases inferences of fact will almost certainly form an integral part of any decision. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence on which each such inference can be based is a matter of law, but whether or not such inferences are in fact drawn is - to state the obvious - a question of fact for the tribunal of fact. It may, or it may not draw the inference, but in the absence of perversity it is not for the law to direct the tribunal of fact that it should - whether the shade of meaning given to that word is "ought" or "must" - draw that inference. The tribunal, as any other jury, should not be afraid to believe or disbelieve and should not shrink from so doing."

Mr McManus submitted that this appeal raised no point of law. The Tribunal had correctly directed themselves on the law. They had found facts whose substance and detail were that at each of the three stages the respondents had considered that there were better candidates than Mrs O'Neill for the post on grounds which were factually sustainable and which did not overtly discriminate her on grounds of sex or race. They found that the interview panel were very largely influenced by the reports of Mr Sutton and Mr Fussey at all three stages of the selection process. At the first stage, the successful candidate had an outstanding academic record whereas Mrs O'Neill had only qualified at the second attempt. At the second stage, the successful candidate had considerable experience dating back to 1965. At the third stage, Mrs Bradley had some experience, although no very great experience in red meat, and she had a good reference from her previous employer. Thus, submits Mr McManus, the Tribunal did consider in detail the respondents' explanations. They then carefully considered whether they should infer from the evidence that there had been unlawful discrimination and decided that they were unable to do so. This decision was one of fact which could not be challenged on appeal.

We have each given the most careful consideration to this appeal as, we believe, did the Industrial Tribunal to the case at their hearing. It was a case where the criteria in the first two steps described by May L.J. in Noone's case were fulfilled, ie there was an act of discrimination, because Mrs O'Neill was not offered the post, and there was a difference of race and sex, as Mrs O'Neill was by birth an Egyptian woman and the successful applicants at all stages were British and, at the first two stages, men. These facts pointed to the possibility of unlawful discrimination. There was little or no evidence of overt unlawful discrimination. The Industrial Tribunal had to consider and weigh all the evidence and ask themselves whether such was to be inferred. It was "common sense" in these circumstances for them to consider the explanations put forward by the respondents. In our judgment, it is plain that they did so. They rehearsed the evidence which contained the explanations at length and, although this in part could be said to take the form of reciting what the evidence was rather than judging to what extent it was true, we think that this is a matter of form rather than substance. Where the Tribunal rejected evidence they said so in terms, as in the passage (in their paragraph 16) where they reject the evidence that the reports of Mr Sutton and Mr Fussey were put out of the panel's mind. And they do find that these reports "very largely" influenced the panel at all three stages of the selection process. These reports were not, on the evidence, overtly tainted by considerations of sex or race. They dealt with what were stated to be Mrs 0'Neill's motivational problems and her apparent inability to listen to instruction.

We look to the substance of the Tribunal's conclusions in the full context of their preceding findings and discussion and bearing in mind that no purpose is served by minute and blinkered textual criticism. In this final passage of their Reasons, they explicitly return to what they call "the doctrine laid down in Noone's case". The passage which they had set out earlier refers to the notorious difficulty of finding discrimination on racial grounds, to circumstances where a respondent is called on to give an explanation and to it being open to the Tribunal to draw inferences if explanations are unsatisfactory or untrue. This Tribunal's main concern was explicitly whether they could draw the inference that there had been lawful discrimination and we do not consider that they were, as Mr Allen submits, limiting their ability to do so by the terms in which they expressed their conclusion. For the first limb of the first sentence of Neill L.J.'s principle (4), inferences do not arise. The Tribunal were, in our view, in substance, concerning themselves with the second limb. Further they were, in our view, in substance considering all the evidence (which they had carefully set out at length) and they were in substance considering, and in the event rejecting, Miss Hyde's submissions (which they also set out at length) that "the proper inference to be drawn from the evidence to which we have listened in this case is that the applicant was discriminated against either on the grounds of sex or race or possibly both". They had, as we have said, considered the respondents' explanations. They had not in terms pronounced whether they were adequate and satisfactory. (It is not suggested that in this case on the evidence such a finding would have been perverse). What they did do, in our view, was to take them into account as part of the evidence as a whole in considering whether they could draw an inference of unlawful discrimination. They also adverted to and plainly had in mind in reaching their conclusion their scarcely concealed view that Mrs O'Neill had been unfairly treated. We do not consider that they must be taken to have dismissed the facts which constituted this unfairness from their consideration simply because they refrained from making an explicit finding. On the contrary, they refer to the subject expressly in the paragraph of the Reasons which contains their decision.

In the result, we consider that this Tribunal, having properly directed themselves on the law, in substance did what Neill L.J.'s principle (5) in King's case requires. They felt unable to infer unlawful discrimination. That, in our view, is a finding of fact unassailable on appeal. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.