United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 240_93_1711

Appeal No. EAT/240/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 17th November 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MRS M L BOYLE

MR J A SCOULLER

---

MR A A LAWAL          APPELLANT

BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR A A LAWAL

(In Person)


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Sheffield on the 8th and 11th January 1993.

The Tribunal heard a complaint from Mr Lawal, an employee with British Rail, that he had suffered racial discrimination. His particular complaint was that he had not been called up for testing for promotion from a Guard to a Driver.

The Tribunal unanimously decided that British Railways Board did not racially discriminate against Mr Lawal. The crucial part of its reasons for the decision is contained in paragraph 9 which starts by saying that the Tribunal was initially inclined to believe that Mr Lawal had been discriminated against in the light of statistical evidence which showed that a number of other people, only black people, had not been sent for testing for promotion to Driver. The Tribunal went on to say however, that it had considered all the evidence, not only of Mr Lawal himself but of witnesses for British Rail and the explanations which were advanced in detail and it concluded:

"it is clear to us as a matter of `almost common sense' that it was not racial discrimination which caused Mr Lawal not to be sent for testing for promotion to driver. It was due to failures and inadequacies of administration and by management."

In particular, too much responsibility had been placed on one particular individual. There was a clear finding of fact by the Tribunal that there had not been racial discrimination. There had been a failure and inadequacy of administration and by management.

That finding is not much comfort to Mr Lawal. He seeks to appeal against that decision. By his Notice of Appeal, on the 9th February 1993, he sets out in his grounds that the decision of the Tribunal:

"(i) tantamounts to contravention rule of law;

(ii) it being negation, non-judicial and disqualified inference on precedent, 3-Question inquisitorial guidelines to establish unlawful discrimination

(iii) evidences compound facts of Respondents' guilt . . ."

He refers to criticisms he has of British Rail being evasive and equivocal and he refers to particulars sections and subsections of the Race Relations Act 1976.

Mr Lawal has presented his case "in person" with the assistance of a very detailed skeleton argument in which he goes into more detail on the particular complaints mentioned in his Notice of Appeal. He has also provided to the Tribunal a bundle of documents containing press cuttings; statutory provisions; correspondence and extracts from relevant decisions of the court. We have considered all this material with care. We have come to the conclusion that this appeal should be dismissed for the simple and sole reason that we cannot see that it raises a point of law. This Tribunal only has jurisdiction to entertain appeals on points of law.

There is one other matter we should mention. During the course of his submissions Mr Lawal made certain criticisms of the testing procedure which British Rail allowed him to undergo after these complaints were made. He alleged that there was a discriminatory feature of the tests. We explained to him that we were not, on this appeal against this decision, free to go into this matter. It appears from paragraph 3 of the decision that, at the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal of a preliminary hearing prior to the main hearing, Mr Lawal had asked for leave to amend his application to include a claim for indirect discrimination based on the allegedly discriminatory nature of the tests. The Tribunal refused that application. It was of the view that those grounds were more appropriate for separate application, because that complaint arose out of totally separate facts and circumstances from the current application which was concerned with his complaint that British Rail had failed to call him up for testing as a Driver. We mention that because it is not a matter we can go into. It is not a matter the Tribunal went into. We are not able to deal with that complaint here.

The appeal does not raise a point of law. It will be dismissed.