United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 321_93_0507

Appeal No. EAT/321/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 5th July 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

MR J D DALY

MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

---

H RAMDAS          APPELLANT

BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR H RAMDAS

(In Person)


 


MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): Mr Ramdas appeals in person, against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal given in October 1992, rejecting his applications. It was chaired by Mrs Hollis. At the hearings Mr Ramdas was represented by Mr Lambe and by Miss Brown of Counsel. The hearing extended over two or three days.

Mr Ramdas had been employed by British Railways Board and claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed. His case, originally, indicated an allegation of racial discrimination, but that was abandoned at the close of the evidence and the Tribunal felt that it was clearly a sensible thing to do. It therefore left the the following issues.

Mr Ramdas was claiming that he had been dismissed because of his trade union activities, whereas the respondent employers gave as the reason that he had absented himself from duty on the 11th September 1990 without permission, and had made a false claim for payment of time whilst he was absent from duty on that day. Further that he had attempted to pervert the course of the disciplinary procedures by arranging fabricated evidence to be produced at his disciplinary hearing.

Mr Ramdas had been employed for some 32 years, but his record was not a particularly good one. It was said by the Tribunal he had a very poor record over the years and that he was the subject of a final warning.

On the 11th September 1990 he was booked in for a 12 hour shift. It happened that other members of the staff went to the relevant station and found that he was not present. As a result of this he was disciplined. That disciplinary interview took place on the 19th December 1990 when Mr Ramdas was represented by a member of his trade union. That hearing looked at the evidence in particular a letter from a clerk at the station, which indicated that he had been there during the relevant period. As a result of that information, although there was other evidence, Mr Ramdas was given the benefit of any doubt and Mr Taylor, holding that hearing, decided not to dismiss, but to suspend for three days without pay, excepting that perhaps Mr Ramdas had had a legitimate reason for leaving the station. Mr Ramdas appealed. The grounds of his appeal were that he had been acting without any intention to defraud and in the interests of the railway and of the customers. The hearing was fixed for January 1991.

Prior to that hearing Miss Fish who was responsible for the letter was interviewed and it was discovered that her evidence was false. She said she had done it to help a colleague, she had been asked to do so by a Mr Wilson, who subsequently resigned after working three years with the Respondents. When the appeal came to be heard the management took the view that this matter should be reheard from the start and so directed. It was reheard on the 17th January 1991. Mr Ramdas was represented again by his trade union representative. It was decided that the evidence put forward at the original hearing was false and he was dismissed. He appealed, his appeal failed.

The Tribunal looked at the whole of those facts, they found that the British Railways Board had acted entirely appropriately in accordance with the law and that the decision to dismiss was one which was well within the bracket of an employer in those circumstances. They were somewhat critical of delay, but felt that it had not prejudiced Mr Ramdas. Mr Ramdas sought advice before appealing. He was given some advice, some of which has been shown to us. In fact he complains that he could not be sufficiently or properly represented, as the hearing had extended over several days. It seemed to us most unlikely that he could not give adequate and proper instructions to the Counsel who were representing him. Then he is criticising the delay. That was looked at by the Tribunal and it was rejected. But lastly he really is asking us to re-hear the facts and to reconsider the situation. He produced other documents which he said should have been produced to the Industrial Tribunal. Normally we would not allow those documents to be looked at, but we did look at those documents so as to ensure that Mr Ramdas can have no possible complaint about the way in which he was treated by his employers.

We have looked at the whole of this situation, the position was entirely clear, Mr Ramdas made a false application in respect of his pay. Secondly, the evidence he produced to the initial disciplinary hearing was false. Thirdly, he had been found out and whereas if he had not appealed the whole situation might have been merely a suspension, he did appeal and the fact is that the whole of the evidence was before the second disciplinary hearing, it was all found against him. The Tribunal felt that it was a reasonable way in which to treat him we entirely agree. He was in a minor managerial position and inevitably, in that situation even after 32 years, he would be dismissed.

There is nothing in this appeal, there is no point of law, it must be dismissed at this stage.