United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 549_95_2007

Appeal No. EAT/549/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 20 July 1995

HIS HONOUR JUDGE N BUTTER QC

MR D A C LAMBERT

MR R H PHIPPS

---

MR L M CHAKRABORTY          APPELLANT

ISLINGTON LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON


 


JUDGE N BUTTER QC: This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on 10 and 11 April 1995.

The Appellant has appeared in person today, as indeed he did before the Industrial Tribunal. He maintained before that Tribunal that he had been racially discriminated against, but the unanimous decision of that Tribunal was that he had not and that his application failed.

The background to the case can be stated shortly. The Appellant was employed in the Respondents' Clerk of Works section. He was employed on grade 6. His employment began in April 1968 and ended on 31 December 1992, when he took voluntary redundancy and early retirement.

He said, before the Tribunal, that he had been racially discriminated against when he was not upgraded to the post of PO3 when he applied for that upgrading in November 1992, and he compared his position unfavourably with that of Mr Moore, a white employee who was slotted into that grade.

The Appellant was put on a career structure in 1986 along with other employees in the Clerk of Works section. He was graded at grade 6 and this appears to have been a source of concern to him which has led to a number of previous Tribunal applications.

In the decision the Tribunal set out the background facts, they referred to oral evidence and they considered the documents as well as the written submissions which had been provided by the Appellant and by the Respondents.

The Tribunal found, as a primary fact, that the Applicant (the Appellant here) was not upgraded to the position of PO3 when he applied for that position and went on to say:

"10 .... We cannot infer from this primary fact that the reason why the Applicant was not up-graded was because of his Indian ethnic origin. .... ."

The Tribunal went on to consider the position of Mr Moore. Then in paragraph 12 they said:

"12 We find, as a fact on the evidence, that the Respondent followed their own procedures regarding applications for regrading."

The Appellant today complains that the Tribunal did not give any, or any sufficient consideration, to the Equal Opportunities Employment Policy. The Tribunal, however, had evidence before them and documentary evidence before them and considered, so far as we can see, all relevant matters in coming to the conclusion which they did. They ended by saying simply:

"13 .... We cannot find as a fact or infer that the Applicant was racially discriminated against."

In the unanimous view of this Tribunal today, there was no error on the face of their findings. There is no material to enable us to say that they could not reasonably have reached the conclusion which they did and in the result, it must follow that this appeal fails and is dismissed.