United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 1063_93_1006

Appeal No. EAT/1063/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 10 June 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC

MR J R CROSBY

MR S M SPRINGER MBE

---

MR W GLASS          APPELLANT

GUILDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant THE APPELLANT IN

PERSON


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: Mr William Glass, the proposed Appellant here, commenced employment with the Guildford Borough Council on the 1 September 1988 as a Clerk of Works in the Architects Division of the Department of Technical Services. On the 14 February 1992 he was interviewed by the Borough Architect, who had taken statements from certain witnesses to alleged improper sexual behaviour of the Appellant, and he was suspended from his work. On the 4 March 1992 there was a disciplinary hearing within the Council's jurisdiction followed by an appeal hearing on the 20 March 1992. The Appellant was dismissed.

He appealed against that dismissal to the Industrial Tribunal. There was a two day hearing before that Tribunal, commencing on the 13 May 1993. The Chairman of the Tribunal at London South was Mr T G Ford, a very experienced Chairman. At the end of two days of the hearing, it was a unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the Applicant was fairly dismissed. The full reasons took some time to be collated by the Chairman and the full reasons were sent to the parties on the 12 November 1993. From that decision Mr Glass wishes to appeal to this Tribunal. We have read his Notice of Appeal and listened to his submissions for some forty minutes but we have come to the conclusion that in the Notice of Appeal, and in his oral submissions to us, there is no point of law raised which would entitle him to let this appeal go forward.

Amongst the complaints which he has made to us are these. First, he complained that he was not suspended when statements were taken from witnesses by the Council but there was no obligation on the Council to suspend him, simply because they had taken statements from witnesses. Secondly, he complains that an item of evidence was used of a sexual conduct in 1989 which should not have been so used. We take on board that he may be right on that, but there was a wealth of other evidence apparent from the Industrial Tribunal's reasons, which the Industrial Tribunal heard from which they could well have found, and did indeed find, justified the conclusion that they drew, both that that there had been a proper interview in the employers disciplinary hearing applied by the employer. The case which was made against the Appellant both there and in the Industrial Tribunal was overwhelming.

He further made the point that he was not allowed to show to the Tribunal certain statements of the earlier disciplinary hearings, which he had had transcribed, but as we pointed out to him in the course of the oral discussion, it is not open to him to bring such statements before a Tribunal in his closing address unless he has put them to the witnesses of the statements in the course of their cross examination, and from he has told us we understand this was not done.

In all the circumstances we do not think it would be appropriate for this appeal to go further forward; we therefore dismiss it.