United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR PATRICK GREEN (of Counsel) Messrs Shoosmiths & Harrison Solicitors The Lakes Northampton NN4 7SH


 


MR JUSTICE BELL: The grounds of appeal in this case really amount to a root and branch challenge to the findings of relevant facts by the Industrial Tribunal and to its findings and conclusions of racial discrimination against the applicant by first and third respondent. Of course, criticisms of that kind have to appear very well founded even to be arguable as points of law. But on the face of it, there are, in our view, matters which deserve argument on a full hearing.

Firstly, we consider that it is arguable that the Industrial Tribunal failed to take any or any sufficient account of an alleged incident on 1st November 1995, and its possible ramifications.

Secondly, it is arguable that the Industrial Tribunal failed to take any or any sufficient account of the respondents' case that shift restructuring affected employees other than the applicant.

Thirdly, it is arguable that the Industrial Tribunal failed to take sufficient account of the number of incidents in respect of which it preferred the respondents' account to that of the applicant.

Finally, it is arguable that the Industrial Tribunal wrongly treated Mr Holland, the second respondent, as an appropriate comparator for the situation of the applicant, although he was the applicant's manager and on a different level.

Without reading them out, it seemed to us that the grounds set out in paragraph 6.2.2. of the grounds of appeal are arguable. We have also borne in mind that there is a potentially strange situation here, which, however, may not fault the Industrial Tribunal's decision, in that the Industrial Tribunal found that the second respondent who might be thought to have been at the heart of the troubles, so far as the applicant was concerned, was not guilty of discriminatory conduct towards the applicant, apparently because the tribunal found that he found the applicant difficult and unco-operative, but did not have any racial motive. Yet, the Industrial Tribunal went on to find the first and third respondents guilty of racial discrimination. Of course that it is not necessarily inconsistent, but it is a matter which in our view merits review.

There also a Notice of Appeal against the amount of the compensation award. We propose to let that appeal go ahead as well. Again, the Industrial Tribunal on the compensation hearing did not accept potentially important parts of the applicant's case, yet it did award substantial damages for injury to the applicant's feelings. We consider that the points made in the Notice of Appeal so far as the sum of compensation is concerned are also arguable.

Mr Green who appears for the first and third respondents today, has asked leave to amend the Notice of Appeal so that the last two paragraphs appear as free-standing grounds of appeal. We give leave to amend in that form, but direct that the amended Notice of Appeal be served within the next seven days.