United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR M PAGET (Of Counsel) Messrs Thana & Co Solicitors First Floor 523-525 High Road Tottenham London N17 6SB


 


JUDGE CLARK: This is an appeal by the Applicant, before the Stratford Industrial Tribunal sitting on 21 October 1997, Mr Khan, against that Tribunal's unanimous decision to dismiss his complaint of unfair dismissal against his former employer, The Post Office. The Appellant was employed from August 1988 until his dismissal effective on 22 May 1997.

The background to that dismissal, which the Tribunal found was by reason of his conduct, was that on 28 March 1995 and again on 13 September 1995, the Appellant received written warnings in respect of unauthorised absence from his point of duty. On 6 February 1997 the Appellant was again absent from his point of duty for some thirteen to fifteen minutes. He later told a manager that in accordance with his religious convictions he had been fasting between 6.00 a.m. and sunset, which was at 5.03 p.m. on that day and that he had subsequently left his work-place in order to have something to eat and drink - that was at about 9.00 p.m.

The Industrial Tribunal were unimpressed with that reason bearing in mind that there had been a meal-break since 5.03 p.m. when he could have eaten and had something to drink. The Respondent saw him at a disciplinary interview. He was dismissed and his appeal against that dismissal was unsuccessful. Having found that the reason for dismissal related to conduct the Industrial Tribunal directed themselves in accordance with Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and concluded that the dismissal was fair and that such repeated and persistent breaches of the employer's disciplinary code were sufficient reason for the dismissal. They further found, specifically, that dismissal fell within the reasonable range of responses open to the employer. In those circumstances they dismissed the complaint.

Today, we have before us, by way of a Preliminary hearing, an investigation into the question of whether or not the appeal now brought by the Appellant raises any arguable point of law.

In support of the appeal, Mr Paget has submitted that it was unclear from the two earlier written warnings, which he has put before us, that if there was a repetition of similar conduct on the part of the Appellant during the two year period for which those warnings remained extant, he was at risk of losing his job. We have also been shown an extract from the Respondent's disciplinary code. Under the heading "Repeated Breaches of the Code" it is provided at paragraph 28:

"Where an employee repeatedly is guilty of misconduct it may be necessary to take more severe action than a particular breach of conduct calls for by itself. For example, someone who has a number of current Warnings is likely to face dismissal."

We think that for an employee of nine years service it must have been clear to him from the employer's Code of Conduct, as it apparently also struck the Industrial Tribunal, that he must have been aware that the employer regarded time-keeping as an important and serious matter and that if he persisted in this particular form of misconduct he was liable to lose his job. That is what happened: the Industrial Tribunal concluded that the employer acted reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason for dismissal, bearing in mind the history of warnings. We can see no error of law in the Tribunal's approach and accordingly, notwithstanding the considerable efforts of Mr Paget on behalf of the Appellant, and having taken into account the two authorities to which he specifically referred us, we have concluded that this appeal raises no arguable point of law and accordingly it must be dismissed at this stage.