United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR I AZIZ (Representative) Crescent & Star Ltd 386 Hanworth Road Hounslow Middlesex TW3 3SN


 


JUDGE J HULL QC: This is an appeal to us by Mr Robert Stephen Ramdeholl. He appeals against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London South under the Chairmanship of Miss Taylor with two industrial members. They sat on 25 March and 1 August to hear Mr Ramdeholl's complaint. He complained that his employers were guilty of breach of contract. They had dismissed him without notice and therefore were guilty of wrongful dismissal.

His employment was not of very long standing. He was first employed by the Respondents, Architecture Ltd, a firm no doubt engaged in architecture, surveying and so forth, as a property management surveyor. The Respondents' premises are in Greenwich. His employment began on 2 September 1996 and it was terminated on 15 November 1996, and on 30 December he made the complaint which I have mentioned.

The employers responded to the complaint which, as I say, was a contractual complaint, not of unfair dismissal - he had not been employed for long enough to make a complaint of unfair dismissal - they said that he had been dismissed for misconduct; he had misrepresented his qualifications, and they made a counter-claim, which we are not concerned with.

The circumstances can be put very shortly. Mr Ramdeholl had been working an MA degree for which, apparently, he was required to provide a thesis which in due course would be assessed by a panel and, if all was well, he would be granted his MA degree. He says he had solid reason to think that he had been successful, it was in the nature of a formality, he said, the meeting of the panel who would assess his work had yet to take place but, nonetheless, he had been told by his tutor that all was well with his work.

When he was applying for his employment, he said that he had an MA degree. Now that was, quite simply, wrong. He did not have an MA degree. Everyone knows that in order to obtain a degree from an English University you must, of course, qualify for the degree. You must matriculate, you must go through the prescribed study and you must pass the examinations which occur at various stages in your progress. If all is well then the university is entitled and normally, of course in 99.9% of cases, will call you to the degree for which you have qualified. No doubt there may be certain checks which will take place before you get the degree but you are then awarded your degree and armed with the degree you are then entitled to say that you are a master of arts or a master of sciences or whatever it is.

What Mr Ramdeholl did was to tell the employers that he had an MA degree and that, as I say, was wrong. It was untrue. He could truthfully have said that in his belief, based on solid grounds, he had every prospect of obtaining an MA degree very shortly.

The employers were very impressed with this, as the Tribunal found. They had cards printed with Mr Ramdeholl's name and MA after it. He filled a niche in their organisation as a property management surveyor and valuer which was valuable to them and they were keen to employ him. Unhappily the employment was not perfectly smooth in operation. Mr Ramdeholl gave cause on various grounds for dissatisfaction, as the employers saw it. Eventually he was summarily dismissed on 15 November and made the complaints I have mentioned.

The Tribunal went into it. They said first of all with regard to one complaint which the employers made of treating an insurance agency insolently, they thought that that amounted to bad conduct, misconduct but not gross misconduct (which would contractually justify summary dismissal). Having stated the history of the MA degree, they say:

"We find, however, that the Applicant's failure to declare to Mr Gordon at the interview in August or at or before his appointment" they are talking about his MA degree "was an act of gross misconduct. We bear in mind that the Applicant knew he had not received the final results of his course. He deliberately gave misleading information to the agent and to Mr Gordon. We consider that it is not enough for him to say that his failure was not relevant because he had passed the requirements of the course. The fact is that he had presented himself as holding an MA qualification before the examination board had even met. We reject the Applicant's submission that he had passed and was simply awaiting a certificate to prove it. He may have had an expectation that he would pass. However, he did deliberately misrepresent his qualifications to the Respondent and caused them to unwittingly mislead their own clients. We have taken into consideration the environment in which he was employed and we feel that the Respondent was entitled to expect the highest standards of honesty and integrity from its professional staff. By failing to inform them of his qualifications we consider that he breached their trust and confidence and therefore we find that the Applicant breached the implied term of trust and confidence contained in his Contract of Employment. Therefore, we conclude, that he is not entitled to receive any further sums under the Contract of Employment and therefore the Applicant's claim for bonus pay fails as does his claim for wages in lieu of notice."

That was their finding.

Mr Aziz, who has appeared today, as he appeared before the Tribunal, takes several points. First of all he says, "indeed, Mr Ramdeholl did obtain his MA degree. His confidence was justified. The information he had been given was correct. Furthermore," he says, "Mr Gordon, the principal of the Respondents, admitted that they would have taken him on without an MA degree. It was not a requirement for the job. Furthermore, it was a representation made in order to obtain the employment, it was not a breach of the contract of employment itself."

These points, which would be, perhaps, perfectly valid if Mr Ramdeholl had had the misfortune to find himself charged with, say, obtaining a valuable thing or some other rights by means of misrepresentation, might be excellent jury points, and might secure his acquittal. But the point is this; he had deliberately, in the view of the Industrial Tribunal, deceived his future employers and, until that was discovered, throughout the employment that deceit continued and, indeed, caused the employers, unwittingly, to deceive an agent with whom they were dealing and no doubt other people too. They had cards printed with Mr Ramdeholl's name and MA after it. Throughout his employment, therefore, that deceit continued. So far from not being a breach of the terms of employment it was, on the view which the Industrial Tribunal took, a serious and fundamental breach of the terms of the contract.

It is said by Mr Aziz that, for the reasons he puts forward, this was not a matter which could be said to be gross misconduct. On the contrary. We think that that was entirely a matter for the Tribunal. It is perfectly true, happily or unhappily, that people do sometimes tell minor untruths - perhaps to avoid social embarrassment or something of that sort: "I am too busy to do this" or "I am afraid I shan't be available on this occasion or that" may be an untruth. It is always a case, if such a thing is treated seriously, for the tribunal of fact to say whether indeed it is something really very trivial which, in this case, the employer had no right to regard seriously and should have treated as a mere minor misdemeanour or whether it is a serious matter which the employer is entitled to take a serious view of.

It was for the employer, first and foremost, to say whether it was serious. Then it was for the Tribunal, as the tribunal of fact, to say whether the employer was entitled to take that view and to treat it as an act of gross misconduct. The Tribunal thought it was indeed an act of gross misconduct and that the employer was perfectly entitled, in spite of the matters which are urged by Mr Aziz (and were urged by him below) to take that view. In those circumstances, in our view, the Tribunal properly discharged their duty as to finding of facts and were entitled, as a matter of law, to find that the employer was entitled summarily to dismiss.

In our view, having heard Mr Aziz, we consider that there is no point of law here which is fairly arguable and, since this case is in our list under our Practice Direction, to see whether we can find such a point of law, since we have failed to find one even with Mr Aziz's assistance, we have to say that the appeal falls to be dismissed now and must be dismissed without going to a full hearing.