United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE CLARK: On 31 July 1995 the Appellant, Miss Novotny, presented a complaint to the Industrial Tribunal raising three claims. First, that the employer had not provided written reasons for dismissal, secondly that the employer had not provided written particulars of her terms and conditions of employment and thirdly, that the employer had unlawfully discriminated against her on racial grounds.

The Originating Application was initially struck out by a Chairman, Mrs Prevezer, sitting alone, on 22 February 1996, on the grounds that the claims were frivolous and vexatious. Against that decision Miss Novotny appealed one day out of time. Her appeal came before the President, Mr Justice Morison, sitting in Chambers, on 15 November 1996. He granted an extension of time for appealing and at the conclusion of his judgment made this direction:

"I will simply make an order that Miss Novotny's complaint of race discrimination arising out of the dismissal, and arising out of the implementation of the age policy, and her dismissal, and her complaint relating to the alleged failure by her employers to give her written particulars of her terms and conditions of employment, should go back before another Tribunal to be heard and determined, unless the parties have been able between now and then to agree between themselves as to what should happen."

It therefore follows that the complaint that the employer had failed to provide written reasons for her dismissal was not remitted to the next Industrial Tribunal. That Tribunal, chaired by Mr D H Roose, heard her two remaining complaints on 11 December 1997.

The background to the complaints was this: Miss Novotny, born on 14 May 1917, was employed by the first Respondent, Irish Centre Hostels Ltd, as a part-time cleaner, working fifteen hours a week, from 3 December 1990. On 16 May 1995 a director of the Respondent, Rev. P Carolan, saw the Appellant in his office and informed her that the first Respondent now had a policy of compulsory retirement for employees over the age of 65. Two people were immediately affected by the new policy, the Appellant and an accountant, Mr Keegan. The Appellant was unhappy at this event and was dismissed on three days notice with two weeks holiday pay. She requested a statement of her Terms and Conditions of Employment which the Industrial Tribunal found were sent to her on 16 February 1996.

Mr Keegan was similarly informed and tendered his resignation to take effect on 30 April 1995. In the event he was asked to stay on until a replacement was found. That took him through to 31 December 1995.

It was the Appellant's case that she had been less favourably treated than Mr Keegan on grounds of her race. She is Sudetan German. He is Irish. The less favourable treatment lay in the extended period of employment afforded to Mr Keegan as compared with the Appellant, who lost her job on three days notice.

The Industrial Tribunal rejected her complaint of racial discrimination on the basis that the difference in treatment had nothing to do with race. They accepted the Respondent's explanation that Mr Keegan was retained simply in order that a replacement could be found for him. As to the second complaint, the Industrial Tribunal accepted that the statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment finally issued to the Appellant on 16 February 1996, did accurately reflect the terms of her contract of employment.

Against that decision Miss Novotny now appeals. The thrust of her appeal is that the Industrial Tribunal should not have accepted the evidence adduced on the part of the Respondents in preference to her own evidence, set out in a statement which she had prepared.

It seems that before the Tribunal the Rev. Carolan and Mr Keegan both gave evidence in accordance with witness statements which had been prepared by them and that thirdly, Mr McCormack, a solicitor, did not appear before the Tribunal and was not called to give evidence but his statement was nevertheless admitted in evidence by the Tribunal.

As to that latter point, we have explained to Miss Novotny that the Industrial Tribunal's procedure permits the Tribunal to admit in evidence written statements; it will then be a matter for the Tribunal as to how much weight should be attached to such a statement.

The jurisdiction of this Appeal Tribunal is limited to correcting errors of law on the part of the Industrial Tribunal. Miss Novotny contends that the evidence given by the Respondent's witnesses, both orally and in written statement form, consisted of "lies from start to finish". We have no jurisdiction to re-try factual issues. Questions of fact are a matter for the Industrial Tribunal. In these circumstances it seems to us that the appeal raises no arguable point of law.

In our judgement, the Industrial Tribunal was entitled on the evidence before it, to conclude that the difference in treatment between the Appellant and Mr Keegan had nothing to do with their respective racial origins, and further, was entitled to find that the Respondent had complied with its statutory obligation by providing a written statement of terms and particulars of employment on 16 February 1996. In these circumstances we shall dismiss this appeal.