United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR C HENSON (Representative) PPC Consultants Ltd Enterprise House Great North Road Little Paxton Cambridgeshire PE19 4BQ


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by the employer, Granges Building Systems Ltd t/a Glostal Monarch, against a decision of the Bristol Employment Tribunal, promulgated first with summary reasons on 6th February 1999 and then with extended reasons on 1st April 1999, upholding the applicant, Mr Hill's complaint of unfair dismissal.

1. The applicant was employed by Granges as Production Manager (designate) at their Tewkesbury Plant. He was summarily dismissed on 23rd September 1998. The background to that dismissal was that management believed that he had authorised a junior employee, Kevin Regan, to pass product on inspection which ought to have been rejected; then lied to the investigating manager, claiming that he had not authorised Mr Regan to pass the material, and had applied pressure to Mr Regan to persuade him to withdraw his statement implicating the applicant, and to alter a record of the inspection.
2. The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal related to the applicant's conduct; that management honestly believed that he was guilty of the misconduct alleged following an adequate investigation (that finding is contained in their summary reasons but not expressly mentioned in the extended reasons) but that they did not have reasonable grounds for that belief and that dismissal, for a man of ten years service, fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
3. The basis for the tribunal's finding that Granges did not have reasonable grounds for dismissing the applicant appears to be a series of findings of fact made by the Employment Tribunal set out at paragraph 8 of their extended reasons. Looking at those findings of primary fact we think it arguable that the Employment Tribunal fell into error. The question for them, arguably, was not whether the alleged misconduct was in fact made out; the question was whether the employer had reasonable grounds for their belief in the applicant's guilt, based on the material assembled as a result of their investigation up to the point of dismissal. On this ground, the appeal will proceed to a full hearing. For that purpose we shall direct that the Chairman, Mr Croom-Johnson, be asked to provide his Notes of Evidence taken at the hearing held on 4th February 1999.
4. The second point which is raised by Mr Henson which we think is arguable concerns the way in which the Employment Tribunal dealt with an argument on contribution. On one view, on their findings of primary fact, which are relevant to the question of contribution, no question of a finding of culpable or blameworthy conduct on the part of the applicant arises. However, we are at this stage troubled by Mr Henson's contention that Mr Delafield was prevented from raising the question of contribution both at the liability hearing on 4th February, and at a subsequent remedies hearing held in May 1999. We should like the Chairman's comments on this allegation. A copy of this judgment should be sent to the Chairman for that purpose.
5. Mr Henson took various additional points in his grounds of appeal, although he was prepared to accept today that the two points which we have identified are really those which ought to go forward to a full hearing and accordingly we shall limit that hearing to consideration of those two points.
6. We shall give the following further directions. The case will be listed for half a day, Category C. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments between the parties, copies to be lodged at this tribunal, not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing.