United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 5_93_2505

Appeal No. EAT/5/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 25th May 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

MR J RAMSAY

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

DR B POLYCHRONOPULUS          APPELLANT

SATELLITES INTERNATIONAL LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant DR B POLYCHRONOPULOS

(In Person)


 


MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): Dr Polychronopulos appeals against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Reading, who on the 28th October 1992 after hearing his case, dismissed his allegations of unfair dismissal and secondly, of racial discrimination, against his employers Satellites International Limited.

The hearing today is a preliminary hearing to see whether there is an arguable point of law which merits a full hearing. We stress that it is only if there is an error of law that we have jurisdiction in this Tribunal to interfere with a decision of an industrial tribunal.

The Applicant appeared in person before the Tribunal. The Company was represented by an Employment Adviser.

At the time of his dismissal the Applicant was the head of the Science & Technology Department of the Company. He was employed there from the 19th February 1990 until the 29th May 1992.

The Tribunal found that there was a conflict of evidence and where there was a conflict, having seen and heard the witnesses, they preferred the witnesses for the Company. They therefore based their findings of fact, in the main, on those witnesses. It is right, however, to comment that there was a very full set of particulars attached to the Originating Application so that the Applicant's case was clearly and fully put before the Tribunal.

Having moved from one division to another there came a time in May 1991 when the Applicant was made the Head of the Science and Technology Division. He was not too happy about that but he, in fact, accepted that. Then Tribunal, in paragraph 8 of the decision, deal with the diminution in the amount of work available for that division, that there were no new contracts coming in. By the early part of the year 1992 it became apparent that the financial situation, so far as that division was concerned, was a serious one. Against the background, which the Tribunal deal with, the decision was made by the Company that the Applicant's position was redundant. He was advised at a meeting on the 21st February 1992 by the Managing Director of the proposal that he should be made redundant, and this was confirmed in a letter.

A number of points are raised by Dr Polychronopulos before us. He submits first, that the Tribunal did not adequately deal with the question of consultation where a redundancy occurred, that they had not considered alternative employment, and that in fact they had not considered the possibility of an allegation of constructive dismissal in that others had been employed shortly before his redundancy; that the Tribunal had not adequately paid attention to the question of his performance and that there were no other redundancies. So far as race discrimination was concerned, he submits to us, that there was ample evidence that the approach of the management of the Company to ethnic minorities was such that the only possible conclusion was of racial discrimination.

Dealing with those various matters it is quite clear in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, that the Tribunal examine the question of consultation, that there had been a limited amount of consultation but this was a small Company and the Tribunal considered it and did not agree that it rendered any of the proceedings unfair. Secondly, there is no doubt at all that in paragraph 11 there is the consideration of the availability of other employment, in other words alternative employment, and that again was considered. Also in paragraph 11 the Tribunal consider whether the engagement of two other engineers amounted to a constructive dismissal; they were in a much lower position and that again was considered on the facts and found against the Applicant. So far as his actual performance was concerned, that again in paragraph 7 of the decision, is dealt with. So far as the race discrimination was concerned, it is dealt with quite shortly in paragraph 13 of the decision, where the Tribunal say this:

". . . there was not one shred of evidence brought before the Tribunal on which one could even vaguely allege that there was racial discrimination against the applicant by the respondents and that application is also dismissed."

That was a question of fact. The Tribunal heard the evidence, saw the witnesses and rejected the Applicant's claims.

We are quite unable to find any error of law in the approach of the Tribunal and therefore we can not help. There is no appeal here, there is no error of law and the appeal must be dismissed at this juncture.