United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 193_93_2009

Appeal No. EAT/193/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 20 September 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FRENCH

DR P D WICKENS OBE

MR G H WRIGHT MBE

---

(1) JOHN CRILLEY & SON           APPELLANTS

(2) G FISKEN

MR C GRANT          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR EASON RAJAH

(OF COUNSEL)

Lloyd Cooper

Solicitors

7a Grafton Street

London W1X 3LA

For the Respondent MR R WILSON

(OF COUNSEL)

Messrs Makanda

Paul Anthony House

724 Holloway Road

London N19 3JD


 


MR JUSTICE FRENCH: We have considered very carefully all the papers in this case and we have also considered very carefully the able arguments of Counsel on both sides. In the end the key question is whether the manner in which the Respondent was dismissed was a manner in which the Appellant would have dismissed a white employee. Whether Amey was or was not a person for whose actions the Appellant was vicariously responsible is, in our judgment, of little relevance. The manner in which the Respondent was dismissed was on any view open to criticism. No reasons were given and the Respondent was addressed as "boy". The Tribunal were bound to ask themselves, and did ask themselves, whether the Appellant would have dismissed a white employee in that manner. They concluded that the answer was "No". There was material on which they could so conclude. It was conceded on behalf of the Appellant that the dismissal was unfair. The remaining question was - Was that unfairness the result of racial discrimination? These were matters properly addressed by the Industrial Tribunal. We find no reason to conclude that their decision was wrong.

Accordingly this appeal must be dismissed.