United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Appellant, who is of mixed Indian and Jamaican race, was employed by the Respondent, Lambeth, from 8 December 1993 until her resignation effective on 11 September 1996. Following termination of the employment she presented an Originating Application to the Industrial Tribunal on 12 September 1996 complaining of unfair constructive dismissal, breach of contract, racial harassment and discrimination.

At a hearing held on 19 March 1997 before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) under the chairmanship of Mr Carstairs the issues in the complaint were identified. By that stage the Appellant had added a claim of victimisation.

The substantive hearing of the complaint took place before an Industrial Tribunal chaired by Mr John Warren over seven days in September 1997. The Tribunal took a further day in Chambers to consider the matter. By a reserved decision with extended reasons running to 20 pages dated 2 October 1997 the Tribunal dismissed each of the Appellant's complaints. Against that decision she now appeals.

We do not propose to repeat the history which is fully set out in the Tribunal's reasons. Essentially, the Appellant's allegations of racial discrimination and victimisation leading to her unfair constructive dismissal were directed in particular at her Manager Mr Denham. The Tribunal considered each allegation in turn, identified by the Carstairs Tribunal, rejecting them in favour of the account given to them by Mr Denham. In these circumstances the Tribunal held that the Appellant did not suffer direct racial discrimination or victimisation, nor was she constructively dismissed.

Attached to the Notice of Appeal dated 11 November 1997 is a document prepared by Miss Patterson headed "Comments on IT Decision" which sets out her version of events where it differs from the facts as found by the Industrial Tribunal.

Following a direction given by the Registrar on 17 February 1998 the Appellant filed an affidavit sworn on 25 February 1998 in support of her complaints of bias on the part of the Chairman which are referred to in the Notice of Appeal. The Chairman responded to the affidavit by a note dated 6 April 1998. He there points out that at the close of the open hearing before the Tribunal the Appellant, who had presented her own case, thanked the Tribunal for the advice and guidance given. That is not disputed.

Today the Appellant has provided us with a Skeleton Argument running to some 28 paragraphs which sets out in some detail the nature of her complaint which she seeks to pursue by way of appeal to this Tribunal.

The contentions really fall into two distinct categories. First, the complaint of bias or the appearance of bias on the part of the Tribunal Chairman, Mr Warren and secondly, a submission that findings of fact made by the Tribunal were contrary to the weight of the evidence provided before the Tribunal so that the overall conclusion was a perverse one.

Dealing first with the question of bias the allegations set out in the affidavit, sworn by the Appellant on 25 February, amount to this. That the Tribunal acted improperly in relation to certain factual matters and in argument she has referred to what she tells us is a mistake by the Chairman in finding that she had been suspended from work and also in relation to the question of management transfer and also the failure to mention what she describes as the "Redundancy Scam" whereby employees were invited to take a redundancy package which involved the use of two separate sets of documents. Secondly, she complains that the Tribunal has ignored the evidence of a witness called by the Respondent, Mr Hart, and thirdly, that from time to time she was hurried by the Chairman when she was seeking to examine or cross-examine witnesses and that that never happened to the other side and that the Chairman laughed and agreed with the Respondents whenever the opportunity arose.

We have considered those allegations and we are not satisfied, bearing in mind the comments of the Chairman, that an appearance of bias arose in this case. Where a Tribunal is dealing with a long case involving many documents and a good deal of oral evidence and one of the parties is unrepresented, it is almost inevitable that the Chairman will have to take an interventionist approach in order to try and keep the matter on the rails so that only the relevant issues are investigated and to ensure that there is no unnecessary repetition of points.

As to the questions of the findings of fact, it is again almost inevitable that minor factual errors are made by Industrial Tribunal Chairmen, who are producing a 20 page set of reasons following a seven day hearing. What we are quite satisfied about is that any mistakes drawn to our attention by Miss Patterson did not bear on the real issue for the Industrial Tribunal which was to decide between the Appellant and Mr Denham as a matter of credibility.

So far as the allegation of perversity is concerned, again it seems to us that whereas we are sure that Miss Patterson has a real sense of grievance at having failed in her application, the Tribunal made findings of fact which they were entitled to make on the evidence before them. Our jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law, not to re-trying factual questions. That, we think, is really what Miss Patterson is asking us to do. We must decline that invitation.

In these circumstances we shall dismiss this appeal.