United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 974_94_0702

Appeal No. EAT/974/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 7 February 1995

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MRS M L BOYLE

MR J C RAMSAY

---

MR J C CORBISHLEY          APPELLANT

WORMALD MANUFACTURING LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR NIGEL GRIFFIN

OF EMPLOYMENT LAW BAR ASSOCIATION INVITED TO ADDRESS THE TRIBUNAL


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: Mr John Corbishley was employed by Wormald Manufacturing Ltd, ("the Company") from 1988. In June 1993, at the Company's request, he saw a doctor whom he had first seen on 18 October 1991. On 1 June 1993 the doctor wrote a report to the Company which concluded with these words:

"I have no alternative but to recommend that he should be retired from his work on medical grounds".

Following a meeting with the representatives of the Company on 14 July, Mr Corbishley was written a letter on that date, stating that with regret the Company advised him of their decision to terminate his services with effect from 16 August 1993 on medical grounds. He commenced proceedings in the Industrial Tribunal on 24 August 1993. A Notice of Appearance was entered by the Company on 10 November 1993. There was a hearing on 20 April 1994. Reasons in summary form were given on 16 May 1994. The Extended Reasons were given on 19 August 1994 and a Notice of Appeal followed on 20 September 1994.

Under the scheme, which is working in the court this week, we have had the benefit of Mr Griffin's formidable advocacy in submitting, on behalf of Mr Corbishley, that there is a case to go forward for there to be a full appeal.

He put forward two grounds. First, in the Company's evidence, it is suggested that the allegation that Mr Corbishley was having trouble with his fellow employees was not known prior to the dismissal, but in fact a letter of 1 June 1993 from which I have read an extract, does show that he thought he had trouble with his immediate superior prior to that date.

Secondly, Mr Griffin submits, on Mr Corbishley's behalf, that the Tribunal fails to reflect in the Summary Reasons or indeed the Extended Reasons, the argument put forward by Mr Griffin that uninvestigated trouble with his superior was the true cause of his dismissal. In those circumstances he submits that there is something amiss when the Industrial Tribunal conclude, as they do in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Extended Reasons, that there was little doubt here as to the reason for dismissal and they go on to say that the Company had done all it could and should have done.

We agree with Mr Griffin that the Tribunal does not address the issue of Mr Corbishley's difficulties with his immediate superior at all, but it is the sort of failure that we have learnt and are told in this Tribunal not to criticise when we can see, from the findings which it has made, that overall the Tribunal below has gone carefully into the relevant facts of the case and come to a decision, which we think was inevitable on the information which was presented to it.

In these circumstances, while expressing sympathy with Mr Corbishley and thanking Mr Griffin for his submissions, we intend to dismiss this appeal.