United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 976_93_2401

Appeal No. EAT/976/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 24th January 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MRS M L BOYLE

MR J A SCOULLER

---

MR R O BLACKETT          APPELLANT

EAST BERKSHIRE HEALTH AUTHORITY          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR R O BLACKETT

(In Person)


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: This is a preliminary hearing an application by Mr Blackett on the proposed appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Reading who unanimously decided on the 3rd August 1993 that the Applicant's dismissal was unfair for procedural reasons and awarded £2,460 being the basic award. The Tribunal held in their unanimous decision:

"There is no compensatory award as the Tribunal were of the view that the applicant contributed 100% to his dismissal."

The full Reasons of the Tribunal showed that the background to the hearing of the case where allegations that the Applicant had made, to members of the catering staff:

"uninvited and unwelcome remarks of a sexual nature towards female members of the catering department and had also made remarks of a racial nature against members of the catering department."

The Tribunal, having heard the evidence, said in paragraph 19 of their decision:

"Where the evidence of the applicant differs from that of the witnesses in respect of the allegations which were made, we prefer the evidence of the witnesses."

Mr Blackett wishes to appeal essentially on three grounds:

First, that the witness who made the principle complaint against him on racial grounds, was not a witness before the Tribunal. However, his attendance was not something which was necessary for the Tribunal fairly and properly to hear the case. What they were doing was looking at what had happened below and seeing if the circumstances which the employers investigated merited the decision which they had taken. It is not a criminal case where Mr Blackett would of course be entitled to have the complainant in court, or alternatively if she was not there, the evidence which was available for the Tribunal would have been of much less weight. We think there is nothing in this point.

Secondly, Mr Blackett complains that the facts which the Tribunal found were not right. We cannot interfere with the Tribunal's findings of fact. We can only let an Appeal go forward if there are points of law involved and disagreement by an Appellant on findings of facts does not amount to a point of law.

Thirdly, Mr Blackett complains that prior to the hearing there had been representations within the area about his relationships with COHSE which might have in some way blackened his character before the Tribunal. Again, it is clear from page 5 of our bundle, that Mr Blackett was represented by a representative of his Union at the hearing and what happened between times, we are sure, were entered nowhere into the arena of the discussion in the Industrial Tribunal, and we are sure that nothing of that affected the decision in any way.

In the circumstances we think that this appeal must fail and we do not propose to allow it to go any further. There will, therefore, be no further appeal to this Tribunal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.