Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Flynn v Royal County Of Berkshire & Anor [1997] UKEAT 139_97_0205 (2 May 1997)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/139_97_0205.html
Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 139_97_0205, [1997] UKEAT 139_97_205
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
MR R H PHIPPS
MR J FLYNN APPELLANT
(1)ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE
(2)GOVERNING BODY OF COLNBROOK CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL RESPONDENTS
| APPELLANT | |
(2)GOVERNING BODY OF COLNBROOK CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL |
RESPONDENTS |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: The appellant, Mr Flynn applied on 12th September 1995 for an advertised post of Welfare Assistant in the learning difficulties resource at Colnbrook Church of England School. He was one of 16 or 17 applicants for the post.
A paper sift was carried out, reducing the number to six, including the appellant. However, the final short-list was reduced to four, and at this stage the appellant was eliminated. All four short-listed candidates were female.
The appellant brought a complaint of unlawful sex discrimination against (1) the Local Education Authority and (2) the Governing Body of the School, which was heard by the Reading Industrial Tribunal on 3rd June and 8th November 1996. On the first day the appellant withdrew his complaint of indirect sex discrimination and proceeded on the basis of direct discrimination only. The claim was dismissed for the reasons promulgated on 4th December 1996.
Against the decision the appellant now appeals. He has indicated that he will not attend this preliminary hearing held to determine whether or not the appeal raises any arguable point of law to proceed to a full hearing.
The thrust of the appeal is that the Industrial Tribunal failed to take into account statistical evidence as to the number of women employed by the Local Education Authority in this type of post, and the fact that the school employed 100% women. He also contends that the tribunal's finding that the respondent operated an equal opportunities policy was perverse. He seeks a direction that we make an order for the Chairman to produce part of his Notes of Evidence.
We have carefully considered the tribunal's reasons.
In our judgment the tribunal, in determining this claim for direct sex discrimination, did apply the guidance of Neill LJ in King v Great Britain China Centre [1991] IRLR 513. If there was unequal treatment it accepted the employer's explanation, and in those circumstances declined to draw the inference of discrimination.
In these circumstances we can see no grounds for interfering with this tribunal decision, and accordingly the appeal must be dismissed at this stage.