Appeal No.	 EAT/583/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 October 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR A E R MANNERS
MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MR J GARRETT	APPELLANT

LLOYDS OF LONDON	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR R THACKER
Free Representation Unit
49-51 Bedford Row
London
WC1R 4LR	

	JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC:     This is a preliminary hearing in connection with an appeal from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Stratford.  Its decision was promulgated on 27 March 1995 and it held that the employee, Mr Garrett, had indeed been fairly dismissed by reason of his misconduct.

	Shortly the facts are that Mr Garrett had been employed by the Respondents since about 1980 as a liveried waiter and since 1986 had held the supervisory position of being head of the post room.  

	In January 1996 it was ascertained that somebody was gaining access to brokers’ telephone lines for the purposes of putting through calls to the racing line through which you ascertain racing results.  Investigations were carried out involving a number of the liveried waiters including Mr Garrett himself.

	Mr Thacker, for the Appellant, says the Employment Appeal Tribunal which hears the case, will have to come to a conclusion as to whether the investigations and the ultimate disciplinary hearing carried out by the Respondents were fair, having regard to the terms of their own disciplinary procedures.

	The disciplinary procedure suggests that the Respondents will produce the evidence for the employee to consider so that he could have the opportunity of questioning that evidence.  In this particular case no witnesses were called and no witness statements were produced for Mr Garrett to see in advance of the hearing.  The allegations contained in those statements however, were put to him and he had the opportunity of making an off-the cuff response and his response was that what was being said by these other waiters indicated they were “stitching him up”.

	We take the view that there is an arguable point that the employers did not follow their own disciplinary procedures as they should have done.  Accordingly, we think this case should go through to a full hearing.