United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON
For the Respondent	No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent


 


JUDGE WILKIE QC This is an appeal by Mr Amin against the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Nottingham on 2 April 1997, the decision being sent to the parties on 7 January 1998. Mr Amin had claimed racial discrimination, unfair dismissal and failure to provide written reasons for dismissal on the occasion of his dismissal by his employers, G E Macpherson Ltd.

1. The Tribunal at Nottingham rejected each of his complaints. But Mr Amin has appealed the decisions in respect of the unfair dismissal and the failure to supply written reasons for his dismissal. Those two matters of appeal came before this Tribunal and by a decision dated 24 August 1998 the Tribunal concluded that his appeal against the finding dismissing his claim for unfair dismissal had no reasonable prospect of success and accordingly dismissed that appeal. As far as his appeal against the refusal of the Tribunal to find that there had been a failure to supply written reasons for his dismissal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal on that occasion found that there were good arguable points to be made on his behalf and therefore it permitted that ground of appeal to proceed to a full hearing.
2. Mr Amin has attended today, apparently with the intention of arguing at a full hearing both his appeals, namely in respect of the unfair dismissal claim as well as the failure to provide written reasons for his dismissal. We have, however, explained to him that his appeal against the refusal to find that he had been unfairly dismissed was itself dismissed in August of last year (1998). We have therefore, no power to hear that appeal. However we do have the power and, indeed, the duty to consider his appeal against the Tribunal's refusal to accept his claim that there has been an unreasonable failure on the part of his employers to provide him with written reasons for his dismissal.
3. It seems to us that the Tribunal erred as a matter of law in that it is clear from the terms of its decision that the conclusion on this issue, was one which was reached by the Chairman alone without his members being privy to his deliberations or to that decision. We have no difficulty in concluding that that was a manifest error of approach and therefore that would entitle Mr Amin to succeed on the appeal, certainly to the extent of invalidating that decision of the Tribunal. It does seem to us, however, that we can go further than that. It is clear from his IT1 that what he was saying, was that his solicitors had written to the Respondent Company on 29 August 1996 requesting full written reasons for his dismissal and that there had been no response to that request. It is equally clear from the terms of the Respondent's IT3 in respect of that claim as set out in paragraph 7H of their Notice of Appearance, that the absence of written reasons for dismissal was regretted. The reasons had been sent to the Respondent's solicitor, but as an oversight, a letter which had been dictated dated 30 August was never sent.
4. In our Judgment on the basis of those two statements, the claim made by the Appellant and the response made by the Respondent Mr Amin establishes his case that there has been a breach of the obligation on the part of the Respondent's to provide him with written reasons for dismissal. The Respondents to this appeal have not attended today but they have, however, by their Respondents answer, indicated what they might have said had they attended. In that document they accept that the reasons for his dismissal were sent to them outside the 14 days required by the Act. It is implicit that they were then sent to Mr Amin's solicitors outside the 14 days. It is asserted that this was sufficient to discharge the Respondent's duty under the Act.
5. It also goes on to argue that because Mr Amin did not pursue the complaint at the hearing of his claim for unfair dismissal that it was not perverse for the Tribunal Chairman to reject his claim. We have considered both of these points and we think there is nothing in either of them. It is clear that they could, acting reasonably, have provided him with the reasons for his dismissal in written form within the 14 days. The fact that they, by oversight, failed to do so is not in law and in our judgment an excuse. It is not surprising that at the Tribunal hearing the matter was not pursued in the sense of the evidence being called. The claim was before the Tribunal on the pleadings and on the face of it, was conceded on the pleadings. Therefore, in our judgment, the Tribunal decision to dismiss this claim was wrong, both procedurally and in fact and in law. Therefore we substitute a finding that there was a breach by Geoffery E Macpherson Ltd of the duty under Section 93(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by unreasonably failing to send Mr Amin written reasons for his dismissal within the requisite period.
6. That being so, the amount of compensation he is to receive is mandatory and two weeks wages. We note from the IT1 that Mr Amin's average take home pay was £850 pcm. Taking one half of that as being the approximation of two weeks, we award Mr Amin at £425 plus £8, being the approximation of two weeks bonuses as set out in the IT1. Thus the amount of the award is £433.