United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 381_94_2706

Appeal No. EAT/381/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 27th June 1994

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MS S R CORBY

MR A D SCOTT

---

MR R KERSHAW          APPELLANT

NOTTINGHAM CITY TRANSPORT          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR R KERSHAW

(In Person)


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC: Mr R Kershaw was employed by Nottingham City Transport Limited from March 1987 until he was dismissed, essentially, for bad time keeping. The dismissal followed various warnings and an application of the Company's disciplinary procedure. Mr Kershaw complained that he was wrongly dismissed to an Industrial Tribunal held at Nottingham on the 16th February 1994. The Tribunal unanimously decided that in the circumstances the dismissal was not unfair.

Mr Kershaw wishes to appeal from that decision. We have heard on a preliminary ex-parte hearing today the reasons for him so wishing. Among the matters which he has put before us are the fact that another driver, who was similarly late, was told, he says, by somebody else, to put in a sick note. But we do not know how that driver's record compared with that of Mr Kershaw. He has also showed us documents at which he says the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal refused to look. But as I endeavoured to explain to Mr Kershaw, what an Industrial Tribunal has to do is to see whether his employers followed fair procedures before reaching their decision; whether the decision to dismiss was a response the employers could reasonably have come to in the circumstances. If it was, the Industrial Tribunal could only interfere if the employer's behaviour was wrong. The documents would not have helped the Tribunal. Mr Kershaw also complained that he had not had the full benefit of union representation. However, we see from paragraph 5 of the Reasons that Mr Kershaw was attended by a union representative when there was a disciplinary hearing on the 24th August and he was attended by a union representative when there was a further hearing on the 24th September. By that last date there had been three further occasions during his notice period when he had been late. A technical argument was put forward by Mr Kershaw at the Industrial Tribunal, but he did not rely on that here and in any event the Chairman explained why he did not think that technical argument assisted Mr Kershaw.

Appeals are only allowed to go forward if, in the opinion of the Tribunal which hears a preliminary ex-parte hearing, there are grounds for thinking there are any prospects of success. We have come to the conclusion that on this appeal Mr Kershaw can have no possible grounds for expecting success and in the circumstances, sympathy though we may have for Mr Kershaw, we have no alternative other than to dismiss this appeal at this stage.

Mr Kershaw seeks leave to appeal. This is refused.