United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Appellant neither present or represented


 


JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in an appeal from a decision promulgated on 8 April 1998 of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South, whereby they dismissed all claims made by the employee, Mrs Thebe. Mrs Thebe has notified the Tribunal that she intends to appeal but she has not attended to address us today. Enquiries have been made but without any useful information being obtained. Nobody knows where Mrs Thebe is. So we intend to dispose of this matter now.

The facts are that Mrs Thebe was employed by the Respondents as a nurse. Her grade was grade 5 and that would mean that she would be in charge of a ward and in a position of considerable responsibility.

In February 1996, when she was in charge of a ward, some serious incident occurred which resulted in her being dismissed. She appealed against that dismissal with the result that she was reinstated but she was downgraded and was required to take part in further training.

Subsequent to that, Mrs Thebe suffered depressive illness. She issued an Originating Application to the Employment Tribunal. That was settled as a result of negotiations with the aid of ACAS on the 6 June 1997 and the terms of the settlement were that Mrs Thebe would be paid £810 and indeed her downgrading would be revoked.

Thereafter the Respondents intimated that they wanted her back at work and expected her to come back, but Mrs Thebe did not return to work, notwithstanding the fact that the Respondents' occupational health adviser declared that she was fit to resume work. As a result of her non attendance at the hospital, the Respondents commenced disciplinary proceedings, based on the fact that she had failed to report for work. Dates were fixed for such a hearing on 19 May, 12 June, 20 June and again on 3 July. Prior to the latter appointment, she was seen again for an update by the occupational health adviser and she was deemed fit for work.

When she did not attend on 3 July, she was dismissed in her absence and it is expressly stated by the board which conducted the disciplinary proceedings that they took into account the formal written warning which was on her file. There is no indication in the extended reasons as to when that had been entered. It was probably part of the terms of the settlement which were negotiation by ACAS, but we do not know about that.

In any event, the decision of the disciplinary hearing was that she be dismissed for gross misconduct. Following that, Mrs Thebe wrote in saying that her union representative had not been available to attend that hearing because he was on holiday. The result was that the Respondents wrote to her asking for a full written statement. There was no reply to that request.

Accordingly, no arrangements were made for an appeal to be heard. The Employment Tribunal hearing Mrs Thebe's application came to a finding that dismissal was a reasonable response in the circumstances. They found, in respect of the Appellant's claim for racial discrimination, that there was no evidence to justify such a claim. They considered that a white person would have been treated in just the same way in the same circumstances. There was a claim for travel expenses and the Employment Tribunal found as a fact that they had not been paid because Mrs Thebe had not submitted a formal written claim for expenses.

Then last there was a claim in respect of the Respondents' alleged failure to pay the amount agreed as part of the settlement with ACAS. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the settlement was for a gross sum of £1,345 which produced the net figure of £810. In their view, that was the sum which had been agreed between the parties to the settlement and they took note that the Respondents had accounted for the balance in tax.

In all the circumstances, Mrs Thebe, not having attended before us in order to justify our granting leave for this matter to go forward to a full hearing, we can see on the material before us no arguable point at law which could go forward. In the circumstances, it is our judgment that we must dismiss the appeal at this stage.

The only points raised by Mrs Thebe in her Notice of Appeal was that she was unrepresented before the Employment Tribunal and spoke little English. We remark that those observation do not amount to a point of law.