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 >> Chan v Synchronised Systems Installations Ltd [1993] UKEAT 708_92_1903 (19 March 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/708_92_1903.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 708_92_1903
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR J P M BELL CBE
MRS P TURNER OBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR W CHI HO CHAN
(In Person)
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by way of a Preliminary Hearing by Mr Chan against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Reading, under the Chairmanship of Mr Jenkinson, who heard his case over two days in 1992 and rejected his allegation that he had been unfairly dismissed by his employers. Mr Chan has pointed out that the name of the Company is not accurate on the papers before us and that the name of the Company should be "Synchronised Systems Installations Limited". However, that makes no difference to the essence of this matter which depends upon a substantial history.
In his Originating Application Mr Chan set out a long history of the problems which had been occurring in 1991. The Company, in their Notice of Appearance, set out what they alleged is the full history of the matter over some ten pages. It was therefore before the Tribunal, the case on both sides; the Tribunal were able to see and hear the witnesses and they had to reach their decision which largely here depended upon the facts. The law is straightforward enough now. The issue was what happened.
The Applicant, Mr Chan, was employed by the Company from the 4th April 1988 as an Accountant, he was obviously in a senior position. In June 1990 the Company was acquired by Molynx Holdings plc, the Financial Director of that holding Company was Mr Trinkoff, but Mr Fidler had been one of the original founders of the Company and remained as Managing Director of the company employing Mr Chan.
Matters came to a head in the Summer of 1991. There was a Board meeting on the 17th June and Mr Fidler was unable to give certain details to the Board in reply to certain queries on the balance sheet; he was asked to provide more detailed information in the future. Mr Trinkoff had asked to see some of the more detailed information but in seeking that information from Mr Chan, he made it clear to the Tribunal that he did not intend to go behind Mr Fidler's, the Managing Director, responsibilities in any way. On Tuesday 9th July 1991 there was a request by Mr Fidler to Mr Chan for his report for the July meeting. Mr Chan refused to produce it. The incident blew-up and subsequently, on the 12th July, there was a further meeting; a letter of that date was written in which three reasons were given for Mr Chan's dismissal. First, the categorical refusal to comply with a reasonable request. Second, the use of some derogatory remarks. Third, there had been a lack of tact in the handling of his staff over some period of time.
The Tribunal having set out the incidents of the Summer of 1991 then went back to see the history of this matter over a rather more extended period. There had been criticisms of Mr Chan in September 1990 and again in January 1991 and again in April 1991. The Tribunal summarise their overall view of the matter in paragraph 17 where they say this:
"The incident which arose out of Mr Chan's misunderstanding of Mr Trinkoff's requirements has, in our view, to be regarded in the light of a back drop of constant criticism of Mr Chan's handling of his staff and his department and is to be seen as the culmination of this series of events, which do not show Mr Chan's work in a favourable light."
They then consider the terms of the letter and indicate that the reason for the dismissal was conduct, which they take the view amounted to gross misconduct, refusal of a reasonable order and that the employers were entitled to accept that view. They looked at the procedural matters, and lastly they decide that the decision to dismiss was reasonable and within the bounds of the views of a reasonable employer.
Mr Chan has argued his case before us with ability, as you would expect from someone with his qualifications. He has taken exception to one or two words in the drafting of the decision but it seems to us that that is too minute a basis of criticism. What he is really saying is that the Tribunal did not accept his version of matters and that they found the facts against him. That is not a good ground of appeal if there was evidence upon which those facts could be founded.
When one reads this decision and looks at it as a whole the matters upon which the Tribunal rely are very substantially contained in documentation. So although they saw and heard the witnesses there was an abundance of documentation and, as we have already pointed out, there were long and extensive pleadings setting out the case in the greatest detail. We have listened to Mr Chan but we are quite unable to say here that there was an error in law in the decision of this Industrial Tribunal. They saw and heard the witnesses; they found the facts; Mr Chan, unfortunately, was faced with the fact that they found those facts against him, but that is not a ground of appeal, there was evidence upon which those conclusions could be drawn and it follows that we cannot help Mr Chan and this appeal must be dismissed and it is.