United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	The Appellant neither present nor represented.
For the Respondents	Mr T Ross, (of Counsel) Instructed by: Ms C Boahen London Borough of Hackney Legal Services Department 183-187 Stoke Newington High St London N16 0LH


 


JUDGE COLLINS:

1. This is an appeal against a decision made by an employment tribunal in Stratford, refusing to adjourn tomorrow's hearing of Mrs Laniyan's claim against the London Borough of Hackney that she was unfairly dismissed. A chronology has been prepared on behalf of the respondents and I refer to it.
2. The appellant worked as a housing officer with the respondents from 1984. An investigation took place because it was alleged that very substantial unauthorised international telephone calls had been made. A disciplinary procedure including an appeal concluded on balance that it was the appellant who was responsible and she was dismissed for gross misconduct. She presented her originating application on 17 November 1998. It was listed for hearing first on 6 May 1999 and second on 21 October 1999. On both occasions, as we understand it, it was adjourned because of the appellant's difficulties with her representation, on the second occasion as late as the day before the hearing.
3. The appellant applied again to the tribunal for the hearing now fixed for 16 and 17 March to be adjourned. Her application was refused. Mrs Laniyan is not here to pursue her appeal, although the court staff have informed us that she was present this morning. She makes two points in writing. First, she says that she is not in a state to conduct her own case if she has to. She says that she has severe postnatal stress, having given birth by caesarean section. There is no medical evidence to support the proposition that she has some condition which prevents her from carrying on with the hearing tomorrow. Second, she says that at some point she was represented by a firm that she describes as 'solicitors' (who are not in fact solicitors according to their notepaper where they describe themselves as 'Independent Legal Practitioners') and that they have her papers and are refusing to deliver them up unless she pays their bill. There is an outstanding bill of £375.00 inclusive of VAT. She has sued them in the County Court for the return of the file and wants the case in the tribunal to be adjourned until after the conclusion of the civil proceedings.
4. For all we know, the civil proceedings may take months to resolve and in any event this case seems to be a simple one. Were the telephone calls made? Did the respondents conduct a fair investigation into who was responsible for making the calls? Did they reasonably believe that the appellant was responsible and act fairly and reasonably in deciding that it was a reason for dismissing her without further ado? It is difficult to see why two days are necessary for the hearing of what ought to be an short and simple case. The respondents can make available photocopies of all the relevant documents, as I am sure they have offered to do, so that the appellant's new representatives can arrange to conduct the case for her.
5. The tribunal were concerned that this case had already been adjourned twice. They have balanced the difficulties which the appellant said she was in against the obvious disadvantage of having cases hanging around for a long time, particularly since the respondents have had difficulty with their own witnesses, one of whom no longer works for the borough. In those circumstances we do not think there is any reason for us to interfere with the decision of the tribunal and the case will proceed tomorrow.