United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 89_93_1711

Appeal No. EAT/89/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 17th November 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MRS M L BOYLE

MR J A SCOULLER

---

MARBLE IMPORTS LIMITED          APPELLANTS

MR I KARAKANIS          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR D F STOPFORD

(Director Industrial

Relations)

Building Employers

Confederation

82 New Cavendish Street

LONDON W1M 8AD


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on the 27th November 1992. The Tribunal heard a complaint by Mr Karakanis that he had suffered racial discrimination. The Tribunal awarded him compensation in the sum of £5,000.

The initial complaint by Mr Karakanis in relation to his dismissal from employment with the Company contained an allegation that there had been racial abuse from the foreman and from another employee called Richard.

At the hearing in the Industrial Tribunal the foreman, John Christianson, was not called as a witness for the Company and nor was his brother, Paul Christianson, who was the Managing Director.

It is not surprising in those circumstances that the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that they accepted Mr Karakanis' evidence that he was subjected to racial comments and jokes especially from the foreman, John Christianson, as well as from a fellow employee, Richard, whose conduct was subsequently investigated. He was sacked later.

The Tribunal rejected the submission of the Company that it was entitled to dismiss Mr Karakanis in relation to an incident in which he worked for a competitor for one day longer than had been agreed at the beginning of April 1992. The Tribunal concluded that no reasonable employer would have dismissed for the reason given. In those circumstances, the Tribunal concluded, not only that they should accept Mr Karakanis' evidence that he was subjected to racial harassment but also that his dismissal resulted from that racial harassment and treatment.

It was submitted on this appeal, by Mr Stopford of the Building Employers' Confederation with the assistance of a helpful skeleton argument, that that decision was perverse, because there was no evidence of a causal relationship between the discriminatory act and the dismissal of Mr Karakanis. Despite Mr Stopford's helpful submissions we are unable to accept that there was any perversity in the decision. There was material before the Tribunal from which it could make an inference that there was in fact a causal connection between the dismissal of Mr Karakanis and the racial harassment they found was taking place and which was not contradicted by evidence called by the Company. The inference of a causal relationship is a decision of fact, not of law. There is no perversity for the reasons we have mentioned. Therefore we shall dismiss the appeal.

There is one point of detail which should be cleared up in this Tribunal. There is a complaint in the grounds of appeal and in the outline argument that the arithmetic of the Tribunal in paragraph 13 of its decision is flawed, because the figures which are there stated for loss of wages; for loss of diminution in wages; future loss and damages for hurt feelings do not add up to the total figure of £5,000. They only add up to £4,000. It was pointed out by Mr Scouller to Mr Stopford that item 1, which is stated as £800 should in fact be £900 multiplied twice, that is a total of £1,800 reflecting the loss of actual wages from the 1st April to the 1st June. It was accepted, as I understand it, by Mr Stopford that £800 in the computation must be a mistyping. If £1,800 is substituted, as it should be, that produces the total of £5,000. That is the explanation for rejecting the submission that there is a mistake in the arithmetic.

For all those reasons the appeal is dismissed.