United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE CLARK: This is an appeal by the Applicant before the London (North) Industrial Tribunal sitting on 4 and 5 July 1996, against that Tribunal's decision to dismiss his complaints of unlawful sex and race discrimination brought against the London Borough of Islington, the Respondents. Extended Reasons for that decision are dated 24 July 1996.

The background facts taken from the Tribunal's findings may be shortly stated. The Appellant, a male of Asian UK ethnic origin, applied for a position as care manager with the Respondents, after seeing that post advertised in "The Voice" newspaper. Initially he was not short-listed for interview, but after telephoning the Respondents on 18 October 1994 asking for feedback as to why he had not made the shortlist, he was offered an interview on 3 November 1994.

He was interviewed, and one of his complaints to the Industrial Tribunal was about the seating arrangements at that interview. The Respondents said that the same seating plan was used for all candidates interviewed and that appears to have been accepted by the Tribunal. He was not offered the post. The grounds put forward by the Respondents for not selecting him was that he did not, at interview, demonstrate an ability to adhere to the Council's Equal Opportunities Policy.

He then wrote to the Council asking that his application be reconsidered. That letter dated 19 December 1994 was not treated as an appeal against their original decision, a view endorsed by the Tribunal. He wrote further letters to the Council to which no replies were received. The Tribunal criticised the Council for those omissions.

The Tribunal considered the Council's explanation for not selecting the Appellant for the post and accepted it. They declined to draw an inference of discrimination on the grounds of sex or race. The complaint failed.

The Appeal

Mr Teidy represents himself and brings this case out of a sense of injustice. We have sought to explain that our jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law by Industrial Tribunals.

The points he makes in support of the appeal are these:

(1) That he wishes to adduce what he describes as new evidence in the form of enhanced tape recordings of his telephone conversation on 18 October 1994 together with a transcript of the recording. That is not new evidence in the sense that he has only become aware of it since the Tribunal hearing. It could have been made available to the Tribunal but was not. They heard the original tape.

(2) He complains that the Chairman gave an indication at a pre-hearing review that he had a good case, but then dismissed his complaints at the substantive hearing. That is not a ground of appeal. A preliminary indication, if given, at such a preliminary hearing, does not bind the Tribunal which hears the evidence in the case and decides the substantive issues.

(3) He complains that the job advertisement which he saw in the Voice later appeared in the same format in the Guardian. He repeats his complaint about the seating arrangements at interview. These are matters which were or could have been fully ventilated before the Industrial Tribunal, which is the sole judge of the facts.

This is not a re-hearing. The limits of our jurisdiction are clear. There is no arguable point of law raised in this appeal. It must be dismissed.