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 >> Mazouzi v Hospital Of St John & St Elizabeth [1993] UKEAT 306_92_0903 (9 March 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/306_92_0903.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 306_92_903, [1993] UKEAT 306_92_0903
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC
MR K HACK JP
MS D WARWICK
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY
OR REPRESENTATION
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
JUDGE HARGROVE OBE QC: On 4 March 1992 the Tribunal rejected the Appellant's claim that he was unfairly dismissed. In May 1991 the Applicant was given a written warning for shouting and failing to carry out a proper order. He was also criticised for leaving his post without permission. A hearing date for the appeal was set but the Appellant did not attend. He says he did not know the date. After that he did nothing about the matter.
The incidents which led to his dismissal on 19 July - and these were accepted by the Tribunal upon the evidence of Mr Satchell - that the Appellant refused to assist with vegetable deliveries. It was also accepted that the Appellant and another member of staff had an argument in the course of which the Appellant swore in an area where the public could hear and where by common consent, an agreement between employees and the management swearing was prohibited.
A full disciplinary hearing took place. The Appellant was dismissed and the appeal was unsuccessful. The Tribunal held that it was within the band of reasonable responses. The Appellant says that the Tribunal failed to look at all the circumstances, that a gentleman called Alan Boughtflower was not called to give evidence and criticism is also made at the Tribunal's finding regarding the vegetable deliveries and the decision that the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
All these are questions of fact. This appeal raises no question of law and accordingly we order that no further step should be taken upon the appeal. I should point out before leaving this matter that this matter was listed before us at 10.30 am. It is now 2.35 pm and we have allowed this period of time in case the Appellant thought it right to appear before us.