United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR E GRANT (Community Worker)


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: On 12 December 1997 the Appellant, Mrs Green, presented a complaint of constructive dismissal to the Liverpool Employment Tribunal. By a further complaint dated 18 December 1997 she added a claim of unlawful racial discrimination. Those complaints were brought against her former employer, the Respondent Wellcare Nursing Homes Ltd, by which she was employed as matron of the Prince Alfred Nursing Home.

Those combined cases came before an Employment Tribunal chaired by Mr A M Coventry on 19 March 1998. Following a meeting in Chambers held on 5 June 1998, by a reserved decision with extended reasons promulgated on 2 July 1998, the Employment Tribunal dismissed both complaints.

In this appeal, Mr Grant takes no point on the decision to dismiss the constructive unfair dismissal complaint. The appeal is directed solely to the racial discrimination aspect.

At this ex parte preliminary hearing we bear in mind that this is a decision of a very experienced Chairman, sitting with lay members, and we note that , as might be expected, the Tribunal had regard to the guidance of Neill LJ in King v Great Britain China Centre (1991) IRLR 513, subsequently endorsed by the House of Lords in Zafar v Glasgow City Council (1998) IRLR 36.

Nevertheless, we are persuaded by Mr Grant that it is at least arguable that the Tribunal, in its economical conclusions on the race discrimination complaint, has failed to display sufficient reasons for their finding on this part of the case. It is arguably unclear as to whether the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the Appellant had failed to show less favourable treatment, or if she had, what explanation for that treatment was proffered by the Respondent and why the Tribunal found that explanation to be adequate.

The need for Tribunals to perform their duty to provide adequate reasons in a discrimination case "with meticulous care" was adverted to by Peter Gibson LJ in his judgment delivered in Chapman v Simon (1994) IRLR 124, para 41. Apart from their conclusion that "there was not sufficient evidence available for it to draw the necessary inference" (reasons paragraph 11) it is not immediately clear from the reasons as a whole, precisely what acts of alleged less favourable treatment were relied upon by the Appellant, how those allegations were viewed, as a matter of primary fact by the Tribunal, and indeed why they were not prepared to draw the necessary inference.

For these reasons we shall permit the matter to proceed to a full appeal hearing. The case will be listed for half a day, Category C. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Although the Respondents have apparently sent a representative to observe today, we do not seem to have had a PHD form from them. Why is not at all clear but in those circumstances, there are no further directions to be ordered, save that there be exchange of skeleton arguments 14 days before the hearing.