United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT (IN PERSON)
For the Respondent	MR T RESTRICK (OF COUNSEL) (Instructed by) Legal Department Proctor & Gamble UK The Heights Brooklands Weybridge Surrey KT13 0XP


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This matter came before the Employment Appeal Tribunal at a Preliminary Hearing and the case was allowed through on a limited basis only as specified in the Judgment which was given at that time, dated 4^th November 1998. The Notes of Evidence which are required are really, in essence, to enable Mr Jedla to understand how it was that the Employment Tribunal came to accept the Employer's evidence given through Dr Gummer that they reasonably believed that his performance below the standards which were acceptable so as to enable them to dismiss him, albeit fairly.

He says that during the many days of hearing before the Employment Tribunal, as a result of careful questioning of Dr Gummer, he was able to demonstrate that much of what Dr Gummer was saying was not truthful. He says that it appears to him, that on one occasion the Employment Tribunal Chairman actually indicated that he had demonstrated that Dr Gummer's evidence on particular points was fake or false and yet when the Tribunal decision came to be sent to the parties it came as a surprise to Mr Jedla that they should have accepted that both he and Dr Gummer were truthful and furthermore, that Dr Gummer's recollection, where their recollections differed, was to be preferred because it was clearer. I have to say that that matter is not a matter which falls directly within the ambit of the issues which have yet to be determined by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and accordingly, the Application for the notes is not directed to the issues which remain to be determined. But I would like to say at this time, that it is clear that this case should be looked at at a senior level in Proctor & Gamble because sadly, after his dismissal, Mr Jedla suffered a stroke and is plainly (presently, and probably permanently) disabled and therefore, his opportunities are limited. He has sought employment with Proctor & Gamble at a more junior level than he held before.

The issue on the Appeal is largely going to relate, I think, to the way the Tribunal did or did not deal with the question of re-engagement and the losses that he sustained. He is also wondering whether Proctor & Gamble might be in a position to advance his retirement date under the Pensions Scheme, so that he could at least receive a pension payment from his present age, which is 56 rising 57 and I respectfully invite them to apply what I have called, gentleness and possibly, generosity to the way they now approach the matter for the future. I add that to my decision which is to reject the Application for Notes of Evidence in the hope that if such an approach were able to be taken by Proctor & Gamble it might mean that there would be no need for this Appeal to take place. At all events, I hope that it will be possible, after 22 years of good service for the Company, they might be able at least to address some of the concerns which he has addressed today and to engage in conversation and dialogue with him at this time.

That said, Notes of Evidence will not be ordered. If they should become necessary, then of course, the Notes can be ordered at a later date, but as I say, they do not seem to me to arise on the basis of the issues before us at the hearing of the Appeal. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.