United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE BELL: This is a preliminary ex parte hearing in relation to Mr Quartey's appeal against the reserved decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Liverpool. By an Originating Application presented on 21st February 1997, Mr Quartey alleged that his suspension by the respondent, Riverside Housing Association, on 29th January 1997 was an act of race discrimination and also an act of victimisation. By an Originating Application presented on 13th June 1997, he made the same allegations in respect of a final written warning given to him on 17th March 1997. It is important to note at the outset, that the complaints made by Mr Quartey were of race discrimination and victimisation, not unfair dismissal.

The Industrial Tribunal heard the applications over a period of no less than five days on 6th, 7th and 8th August and 9th and 10th September 1997. Mr Quartey was represented by a solicitor. By its reserved decision running to ten pages, the Industrial Tribunal unanimously dismissed Mr Quartey's claims, reaching the view that they were wholly without merit.

Mr Quartey's Notice of Appeal and his skeleton argument before us, argue with various findings made by the tribunal. Mr Quartey contends that there was insufficient evidence to support various findings, and he contends that further evidence should have been or should now be called. Although the Notice of Appeal alleges that the tribunal erred in law in reaching its conclusions, and contends that the tribunal's ultimate conclusion was perverse, it seems to us, reading the tribunal's decision and its extended reasons, that the tribunal directed itself correctly as to the law in this case of two complaints of discrimination, including the burden and standard of proof, and reached conclusions which were amply supported by the evidence and which led inevitably to the decision that Mr Quartey's applications must fail. Certainly, it seems to us, the Industrial Tribunal was entitled to reach the conclusions which it did.

Mr Quartey this morning has raised two particular matters. The first is that it was clear, he said, that he was less favourably treated than another employee, a void supervisor, who had also overspent. But the Industrial Tribunal made a specific finding in relation to that, saying that the other employee had informed Mr Branthwaite, the Property Manager for Liverpool South, of the reasons for his overspend and had taken precautions to reduce spending thereafter, which was a distinction which, in our judgment, the Industrial Tribunal was entitled to find.

The other specific point which Mr Quartey has taken this morning is to allege that the employer was in breach of its own disciplinary procedures in respect of paragraph 157 which reads:

"No disciplinary action will be taken against an employee until the matter has been fully investigated. If appropriate, the Association may suspend the employee on full pay whilst the investigation takes place."

However, Mr Quartey's suspension was a suspension which did operate while there was an investigation into the circumstances of Mr Quartey's case.

We are very well aware from this morning's hearing, that Mr Quartey feels extremely strongly about what he sees as criticism of his professional abilities. We regret to say that we see no point of law which is properly arguable on a full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. For those reasons Mr Quartey's appeal will be dismissed at this stage.