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 >> Howard & Palmer v Roberts [1993] UKEAT 355_91_1902 (19 February 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/355_91_1902.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 355_91_1902
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC
MISS J W COLLERSON
MR K GRAHAM CBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants NO ATTENDANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANTS
For the Respondent MR A R KIRBY
(Solicitor)
Messrs Kirby & Partners
4 Princess Way
Swansea
SA1 3LW
JUDGE HARGROVE QC: The Industrial Tribunal in a reserved decision of the 17th May 1991 held that the Respondent had been unfairly dismissed and the Appellant had unreasonably refused to provide written reasons for the dismissal. The Respondent was a qualified Pharmacist, he began work with the predecessors to the Appellants in 1981. The position today is that the Appellants have been unable to appear because of the illness of Mr Racey. A fax has been received by the Court requesting us to continue and hear the Tribunal and putting forward various arguments and further reciting the grounds of appeal. We have all seen that document, we have all considered it and considered the letter which is attached, dated the 18th February, which speaks well of Mr Racey as a hard working person who would work on Bank Holidays. For the sake of completeness, Mr Kirby on behalf of the Respondent, has agreed that we should hear the matter in the way that we have regarding the representations in the letter of today's date, the 19th February, as being contentions put forward by the Appellant.
It seems that Mr Roberts had an arrangement with his employers that they would provide a locum for his lunch time, when the Respondent wanted to train for rugby practice. On Tuesday, 6th March the Respondent failed to find a locum. Mr Roberts had felt let down and handed the shop over to a Miss Jones, she was described as a Trainee Pharmacist in the decision, and the Appellant says that description is wrong, she was a Shop Pharmacy Assistant. In fact when one looks at the notes she describes herself as a Trainee Dispenser and she was undergoing a course at Cardiff to get herself qualified in that post. Nothing at all turns upon this, the only matter which it could possibly affect is the degree of culpability of Mr Roberts, who I understand acknowledged his fault in leaving the premises in the hands of a person who, whatever her other qualities may or may not have been, was not qualified as a pharmacist. That was wrong, and that I am quite certain was understood by the Tribunal, it is a matter of fact in any event and nothing turns upon it.
The next objection was that there was a finding that the letter of the 15th April was not sent. This was a letter which set out in detail a large number of complaints against Mr Roberts. The objection appears to be upon this main ground, the letter appears to come from Mr Racey. Mr Racey was the advocate dealing with the matter before the Tribunal. His complaint is that they should have given him the opportunity to give evidence on oath, as all the rest of the matter was being given on oath. He did not get that opportunity and he claims therefore that that was unjust.
In our view the Tribunal was perfectly entitled to take the view that this letter was not sent. The history of it is indeed interesting. Bearing in mind it is the 15th April, by the 20th April, from the documents placed before us, Mr Kirby's firm is writing saying it is four weeks since we last wrote to you and let us have an answer. I paraphrase in somewhat inelegant terms what was said. Nothing happened.
The next matter arises because the matter was raised once more in the application by Mr Roberts, 30th June. Nothing happens. He said, on behalf of the Appellants, that on the 16th July they despatched an answer together with a copy of the letter attached to the Tribunal. It did not arrive. So, from the point of view of Mr Roberts, the first time he sees this letter, he says, was the occasion in October at the date of the first hearing.
In the light of that history the Tribunal were perfectly entitled to form the view which they did that the letter had not been sent. It is no part of a tribunal's duty to tell an advocate how to conduct his case, and even the merest intelligence knows the difference between giving evidence, and acting as an advocate in any sort of matter.
Finally, it is said that there was a description, which is true, of Miss Jones that there was a family relationship with a Mrs Steed. Mrs Steed was in control of various pharmacies run by the Appellants. It is right to say that that is inaccurate in its strict term, that she was not related to Mrs Steed in any way. The evidence in relation to this was that it was Mrs Steed who interviewed Miss Jones and that Miss Jones' parents knew her prior to that and it was Mrs Steed who offered to get her a job. That I think is what is mistakenly referred to as a family relationship by the Tribunal. Again it is a question of fact, nothing turns upon it because the only point was that this was a person, Mrs Steed, to whom one would expect Miss Jones to turn, she was eighteen at the time, in order to give vent to her feeling that Mr Roberts was not discharging his duties correctly. All these matters are matters of fact. In our view there is quite adequate evidence to support each and every one. This appeal is totally misconceived and is dismissed. This is a unanimous decision.