United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR D BEAN QC The Solicitor The Post Office Impact House 2 Edridge Road Crodyon CR9 1PJ


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there are any arguable points of law in relation to a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Liverpool on 3 January 1997.

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the employee, Mr Veysey, had been unfairly dismissed by his former employers, the Post Office; that, secondly, if he had not been so dismissed then there was a 50% chance that he would have been retained in employment and the matter should be stood over for a remedies hearing. At the remedies hearing the result was that Mr Veysey was awarded £6,420 by way of basic award and compensation.

The basis on which the Industrial Tribunal concluded that Mr Veysey had been unfairly dismissed was that it was unreasonable of the Post Office to have undertaken the disciplinary procedure when the Post Office had been advised by their own Occupational Health Adviser that, at that time when they proposed to hold the disciplinary hearing, Mr Veysey was ill through a depressive illness and, furthermore, that there would be no point in re-examining him to determine whether he would be able to attend for a further six to eight weeks. The Manager decided to go ahead despite this illness and there was an appeal, which again Mr Veysey was not able to attend.

Paragraph 13 of the Decision, as we read it, says, "we believe every reasonable employer would have delayed dealing with this matter" and it was on the basis that the employers had considered the question of dismissal without giving Mr Veysey a fair opportunity to put his side of the case, that the dismissal was held to have been unfair.

Mr Bean wishes to argue at a full hearing that firstly, the Industrial Tribunal have failed to consider reducing the compensation to which Mr Veysey would have been entitled by reason of his own contributory fault; and, secondly, the Tribunal failed to ask themselves whether, in the circumstances of this case Mr Veysey was entitled to any compensation, having regard to the fact that compensation must be such as is just and equitable.

The basis for the second argument is that, having regard to the findings of the Industrial Tribunal at the remedies hearing, it became plain that even if he would not have been dismissed for alleged dishonesty he would have been dismissed within a fortnight thereafter; that is after a hypothetical oral hearing on the grounds of incapability. In those circumstances Mr Bean would wish to argue that the net result is that he is not entitled to any compensation, or at any rate the Tribunal misdirected themselves in that respect.

We consider that those two points are arguable, but would not wish to express any view as to the merits of either of them. It seems to us that Notes of Evidence are not required. The Notice of Appeal will not require to be amended, having regard to this judgment. It is a case which should be dealt with by His Honour Judge Clark. It should be marked Category C and will be occupying the court for no longer than half to three quarters of a day.