United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


JUDGE WILKIE:

1. This is an Appeal by Mrs Onafowokan against the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Ashford in Kent, that the Respondent, BP Express Shopping Ltd, did not discriminate unlawfully against her, contrary to the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, nor did it discriminate unlawfully against her, contrary to the provisions of Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
2. Mrs Onafowokan submitted a Notice of Appeal dated 23 July of this year, attached to which were two letters setting out her case. Those documents were received by this Tribunal on the 13 August of this year and then again on the 20 September of this year.
3. In further preparation for the Appeal, Mrs Onafowokan has submitted a skeleton argument received by this Tribunal on the 5 November of this year. Mrs Onafowokan has not attended today to advance her Appeal. We are informed that yesterday there was some telephone communication indicating that she was unwell, and therefore could not attend. She was asked to confirm that in writing, thus far she has not done so, although in fairness to her, one would hardly expect her to have done so by this stage.
4. We have decided to look at this case on the material which is presently before us. It seems to us perfectly clear that her Grounds of Appeal amount to nothing more than an assertion of the fact that she disagrees with the decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal decision, which was given after a three day hearing, namely the 21 and 22 April and 19 May of this year and was dated 17 June of this year, is a very careful, and comprehensive decision, which sets out the issues, sets out the chronology of events and the facts that were found, sets out the submissions on behalf of Mrs Onafowokan by Mr Scott of Counsel and for the Respondent by Mr Ellis, a Solicitor.
5. It makes careful findings of fact and deals respectively with each of the complaints that she makes, including direct discrimination, racial harassment and victimisation and sex discrimination, although the last really was not pursued at all at the Tribunal hearing. In our judgment, the conclusions of fact of which this Tribunal came were manifestly conclusions which were open to it on the evidence placed before it. Furthermore we can find no error of law in respect of the approach which the Tribunal took to dealing with the various issues which it had to decide and applying the facts they found to those principles.
6. Therefore we are perfectly satisfied from the material before us there is no reasonably arguable point of appeal and therefore we dismiss this appeal at this stage without the requirement of a full hearing.
7. We are, however, acutely aware of the fact that Mrs Onafowokan is not present, that she has given a reason for her non-attendance. Therefore whilst we dismiss this appeal, we give her liberty to apply to set aside our decision, provided she applies to do so within seven days after this decision is sent out to her, and provided she supplies documentation in the form of a doctor's certificate, relating to her non-attendance on the grounds of illness today.