United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 957_93_0202

Appeal No. EAT/957/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 2nd February 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MR A D SCOTT

MR S M SPRINGER MBE

---

MR C J LLOYD          APPELLANT

RUMBELOWS LIMITED          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR C J LLOYD

(In Person)


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Mr C J Lloyd was dismissed by Rumbelows Limited following an incident in a shop of theirs at 113 Walton Vale, Liverpool. Put shortly Mr Lloyd was alleged to have permitted a customer to leave the shop premises with £1,000 worth of goods, payment having been accepted by him in a manner which were serious breaches of the Company's cheque manual procedures.

There was an application by Mr Lloyd to the Industrial Tribunal, which was heard on the 9th June 1993, where the Tribunal held that his dismissal was fair and that his claim that he had been unfairly dismissed failed.

Mr Lloyd applied for a Review of that decision to the Tribunal and that application was granted and there was a Review on the 28th July 1993. The Review was held in view of the points raised in correspondence and at the Review the Applicant attended "in person" and the Respondents, Rumbelows, were represented.

The Applicant's case was gone into and heard by the Tribunal there, and they obviously carefully considered all that he had said and they concluded that:

"The Tribunal are unanimously of the view that none of the matters now advanced by the applicant affect their original decision. There are no grounds advanced which would justify a Review being granted.

The application is dismissed."

Mr Lloyd seeks to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal against both the dismissal and the Review. Having read the documents very carefully and listened to Mr Lloyd's address this morning, we are of the opinion that there is nothing in this appeal which can possibly succeed. He was, unfortunately, involved in an incident in the shop which his employers took very seriously indeed, the Tribunal below found that their attitude was justified; that their disciplinary procedures were appropriate and their decision a proper one. In those circumstances there is nothing in fact or in law which could help Mr Lloyd in this appeal.

In the circumstances we propose to dismiss this appeal.