United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 574_95_0811

Appeal No. EAT/574/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 8 November 1995

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

MISS J W COLLERSON

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

MR B BRADLEY          APPELLANT

CHALFONT ST GILES PARISH COUNCIL          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal in a dispute arisen between Mr Brian Bradley and the Chalfont St Giles Parish Council.

The appeal is against the unanimous decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Reading on 3 April 1995, that Mr Bradley's application for compensation for unfair dismissal should be dismissed.

The extended reasons for that decision were notified to the parties on 7 April 1995 and Mr Bradley appealed by a Notice of Appeal dated 16 May 1995. The matter was listed for a preliminary hearing to decide whether the points raised by Mr Bradley in his Notice of Appeal and in later correspondence revealed a point of law.

This Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an Industrial Tribunal decision on a point of law; that is, a point concerning the interpretation of an Act of Parliament or Regulations or the proper application of them to the facts of the case, or in some cases, where there has been an error in procedure, or, in rare cases, where the Tribunal have reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal could have reached on the evidence before them and the proper application of the law.

In this case, the Tribunal came to a decision in the absence of Mr Bradley. We are required to do the same on this appeal. The position, as stated in the Industrial Tribunal extended reasons, was that he did not attend the hearing; he made it clear in correspondence that he did not wish to attend, but he was happy for the Tribunal to deal with his case in his absence on the basis of his written representations.

The position on this appeal is that he has ventilated various complaints in correspondence about the handling of his case. He has alleged malpractice within this Tribunal and he has said, in a recent letter dated 4 November 1995, that he would be instructing his representative, Mr Brian Holmes, not to attend any hearings until such time as he is convinced that he is going to receive a fair hearing. He was sent a letter yesterday in which he was told that I had been shown his letter of 4 November. He was informed that, if neither he nor his representative attended the hearing today (8 November), then his appeal might be dismissed in his absence.

There are various other aspects of the appeal which I shall not examine in any detail, but which contain very serious allegations about malpractice by local Magistrates, allegations of corruption and bias, not been substantiated by any evidence. We shall ignore those in dealing with this appeal.

We shall deal with the matter simply on the basis of the decision and the points taken in the Notice of Appeal. The facts found in the decision, after the Tribunal had considered the contents of Mr Bradley's Originating Application, his written submissions and evidence given on behalf of the Council by Mr McLellan, were that Mr Bradley had been employed as a groundsman by the Council from 12 June 1979 until he was dismissed by reason of redundancy with effect from 24 August 1994.

Over the years of his employment his duties and hours had altered. For reasons, which the Tribunal did not investigate, the bowling green and cricket square had been leased elsewhere and the Council was no longer responsible for their maintenance. There were two groundsmen employed by the Council, Mr Bradley and Mr Cooper. By reason of changes in the Council's responsibility over the previous two years, there was a reduced need for groundsmen. There were reduced duties. In future only one groundsman would be able to cope with those duties.

The Tribunal therefore found that there was a redundancy situation facing the Council. The Council had to make a selection as to which of the two existing groundsmen was retained. Neither of them would retire voluntarily or accept voluntary redundancy.

The Council therefore set up an interview panel to make the selection. That met on 2 June 1994. One of the members of the panel was Mr McLellan who gave evidence. The other was the Chairman of the Council, Mr Gordon Patrick. The third was the Chairman of the Finance and General Purposes Committee, Mrs Cutliffe.

The Clerk of the Council also attended the interviews along with a paid consultant, a Mr Bladen. The Tribunal saw both Mr Bradley and Mr Cooper on the same day. After the interviews they had a discussion which did not involve the clerk or the paid consultant. The panel decided there was little to choose between them; it was a difficult choice to make. They took into account various matters listed.

Mr Bradley had more experience. He was a better worker for detailed work on the cricket square and bowling green which required a high standard of maintenance. On the other hand, Mr Cooper was a faster worker, though less experienced. They finally found, as a fact, that Mr Bradley appeared to be less tolerant of the public. The panel perceived that he had a somewhat stubborn streak which might cause problems with the public in future.

Bearing those matters in mind, the panel selected Mr Bradley for redundancy and retained the services of Mr Cooper. The Tribunal said that there was no ground for doubting that that decision had been properly reached after due consideration. They considered the matters they were bound to in accordance with Section 57 and concluded that Mr Bradley was fairly selected for redundancy. That meant that his claim for unfair dismissal failed and it was dismissed. He had already been paid his redundancy payment and worked his notice. He had also received a pension and a lump sum from the superannuation fund.

In our view, there is no error of law in that decision. The Tribunal found facts which we cannot disturb on an appeal. They referred to the procedure adopted for selection for redundancy and found that to be fair. They have correctly applied the provisions of Section 57 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

What does Mr Bradley say is wrong with that decision? In his Notice of Appeal he says that the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in a number of ways. He was denied natural justice in that he was not supplied with copies of documents; documents submitted were not included with the exhibits. An important part of the element in this case was showing that Mr Totterdell, the Clerk of the Council, had fabricated evidence. He complained that the Tribunal decision was in conflict with the evidence and went on to complain that the Industrial Tribunal was not impartial. As for the appeals, he said he anticipated that this Tribunal would condone malpractice by the Industrial Tribunal, on account of the involvement of local Magistrates, including the wife of a former President of this Tribunal, who lived locally. He objected to people, such as Masons and Jews, taking any part in determining his appeal or in determining procedure. He listed various documents which he wished to submit to this Tribunal which had been considered by the Industrial Tribunal and various additional documents. He concluded with a general argument in which he accused the Respondents of bringing forward untruthful evidence. He cast imputations on the impartiality of the members of the Tribunal and went on to make detailed comments on the decision reached by the Industrial Tribunal. He concluded by saying that he seeks compensation and exemplary damages and action against the members of the Industrial Tribunal and various sources of corruption in that Tribunal.

These complaints are repeated in a number of further documents, sent to the Tribunal by Mr Bradley, pending the hearing of his appeal.

The decision we make on this appeal is this. First, as already explained, there is no error of law in the decision of the Tribunal. The main points raised by Mr Bradley, in his Notice of Appeal, relate to factual matters concerning documents and conflict of evidence. As to his allegations of lack of impartiality on the part of the Industrial Tribunal and this Tribunal, he has not produced a scrap of evidence to substantiate these serious allegations.

We do not feel that there is any necessity to pursue these matters when Mr Bradley has failed to turn up to explain what evidence he has of malpractice, misconduct or bias, and has failed to supply any documentary evidence to support these allegations. If such allegations are to be made, they must be supported by evidence which would justify us in pursuing the matter by means of further enquiries. As he has not turned up to the hearing, it is not possible, and it is not appropriate, to take any further action in relation to what, on the documents before us, are unfounded and scurrilous allegations.

For all those reasons, there is no point in this appeal proceeding to a full hearing. It is bound to fail on the material before us. The appeal is therefore dismissed.