United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE BUTTER QC: This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mrs Rajah against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Manchester on 19 July 1996. The reasons for the decision were sent out on 23 September 1996.

The unanimous decision of that Tribunal was that the complaint for unfair dismissal was not presented to the Tribunal before the end of the period of three months, beginning with the effective date of termination of employment, and that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within that period. The Tribunal further decided that the complaint under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the complaint under the Race Relations Act 1976 were not presented to the Tribunal before the end of the period of three months, beginning when the acts complained of were done, and that in all the circumstances it was not just and equitable to allow the application to proceed.

In their Extended Reasons the Tribunal set out the main facts, namely that by an application dated 27 March 1996 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a finding of unfair dismissal from her post with the employers. In addition she applied for a finding of unlawful sexual discrimination and unlawful racial discrimination. It was accepted that the effective date of termination of employment was 31 October 1995. The matter came before the Tribunal on a preliminary jurisdiction issue as to whether or not the proceedings were in time and if not, whether any or all of the applications should be allowed to proceed.

The Tribunal referred to the fact that after a disagreement with a colleague, the Applicant had resigned her employment by a letter dated 1 October 1995 in which she said:

"I hereby give 4 weeks' notice to terminate my employment contract with South Manchester Health Authority from 1 November 1995. May I take the opportunity to thank you for the support and help given to me during my stay at the Hospital."

This letter was sent to the Personnel Department of the Hospital and was acknowledged by a letter of 3 October 1995. It was signed by a Dr Chantler, one of the persons against whom the Applicant made various allegations.

The Tribunal went on to set out the various facts and in paragraph 5 summarised the submissions which had been made on behalf of the parties. At that stage Mrs Rajah was represented by someone from the Citizens Advice Bureau and her submissions are summarised in paragraph 5.2 of the decision:

"(i) The applicant was suffering from stress and depression and was unable to act quickly.

(ii) The applicant was an intelligent committed and conscientious employee who did not want to use the procedures available to her principally because she felt too embarrassed to do so. Whilst in the United States she suffered from very severe stress and depression and it was not reasonably practicable for her to act within the time limit and it was just and equitable to allow these claims to proceed."

Those were the submissions which the Tribunal considered. They then set out the statutory provisions and expressed their conclusions in paragraph 7.

Today, Mrs Rajah who has appeared in person, refers to a number of mistakes which she said were made by the Tribunal in relation, for example, to their reference to a visa in paragraph 7(2). She explained the position concerning her car and she referred to a number of other matters.

It is plain that the Tribunal did consider the question of Mrs Rajah's state of health and expressed sympathy with her in relation to that, but concluded that they were not satisfied that the illness was such as to render her unable to take action in relation to these matters, which she should have taken within the period of three months. They go on to point out that no medical evidence was adduced to explain why any illness which the Applicant was suffering rendered her unable to act within the time limit. They conclude by saying:

"Having looked at the matter in the round and having considered the matter with great care, we unanimously conclude that it would not be just and equitable in these circumstances to allow these claims to be brought out of time and for those reasons the applications under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 are dismissed."

Today, Mrs Rajah has asked us to consider, as we have done, a report from a psychiatrist dated 5 September 1996. That report, it will be appreciated, was not before the Tribunal. We have felt it right to read that report and we observe the contents of it with regard to Mrs Rajah's ongoing depression.

So far as we know, no application was made for an adjournment of the proceedings before the Tribunal, in order that a medical report of that sort should be produced. So far as we know, no application was made for review of the Tribunal's decision in the light of that report. We have considered all the matters to which Mrs Rajah has referred and have studied her Notice of Appeal. Taking all matters into account, we are unable to say that there was any error of law on the part of the Tribunal, and in those circumstances it would be of no service to Mrs Rajah for us to allow the appeal to proceed. We have come to the clear conclusion and it is our unanimous view the appeal fails and must be dismissed.