United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 25_93_1012

Appeal No. EAT/25/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 10 December 1993

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC

MRS M L BOYLE

MRS R CHAPMAN

---

MR S A ROSS          APPELLANT

SAGINAW OVERSEAS CORPORATION          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR F WILSON

(OF COUNSEL)

Messrs Ranga & Co

Solicitors

112 High Road

Willesden

London NW10 2PN


 


JUDGE HARGROVE OBE QC: The circumstances of the case were that Mr Ross and Mr Campbell were involved in a domestic problem which also involved Mr Campbell's wife. All three worked at the same premises of the Respondents. All three had received warnings from the management. All three had offers that they would be moved, if they wished, off the night shift onto the day shift and that was refused. On 11th September, according to the findings of the Tribunal, Mr Ross reported to the management that he had been threatened by Mr Campbell and on 12th September, some yards outside the factory gate Mr Campbell rammed Mr Ross' car. There was then a fight. Mr Campbell used a knife, Mr Ross used a hose. Mr Campbell received serious injuries. That matter was considered and both were dismissed. In cases of fighting the range of options is obviously very narrow and the Tribunal made these findings.

Although there had been no detrimental effect on work performance before 12 September incident, the Respondent was reasonable in taking the view that there was a genuine concern for the future which manifested itself as fear among both managers and employees that the incident might be repeated with the destruction of factory work and injury to fellow workers.

A large number of cases have been quoted to us but there is no point of law in this appeal at all. All the matters are purely matters of fact. Therefore it is outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and this appeal fails.