United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCE

 

For the Appellant	Mr T Kibling (of Counsel) The Commission for Racial Equality Third Floor Lancaster House 67 Newhall Street Birmingham B3 1NA


 
JUDGE CLARK:-
1. The Appellant, who is of Irish national origin, was employed by the Respondent from 22^nd February 1993 until his summary dismissal on 23^rd February 1998.
2. On the 24^th December 1996 he had presented a complaint of direct racial discrimination to the Birmingham Employment Tribunal against the Respondent. That complaint was heard on 21^st July and 27^th November 1997. Thereafter, that application was dismissed.
3. On 30^th March 1998 he presented a further complaint alleging racial victimisation, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. That complaint came on for hearing before a Tribunal sitting at Birmingham under the Chairmanship of Mr D Hewitt over 6 days with a further days deliberation by the Employment Tribunal in chambers. By a decision promulgated with extended reasons on 13^th August 1999 the Tribunal upheld the complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal but dismissed the complaint of racial discrimination which they describe in their decision as the complaint of race discrimination (racial victimisation).
4. At paragraph 11 of their reasons the Tribunal deal shortly with the complaint under the 1976 Act. We need not set out that paragraph for the purposes of this judgment. Mr Kibling who appeared for the Appellant below and appears before us today tells us that by the time the Tribunal came to determine this case, the Appellant had added to the claim of victimisation which appears on the face of the Originating Application a separate complaint of direct racial discrimination supported by some 14 particular instances.
5. It is against the Tribunal's findings under the 1976 Act that this appeal is brought.
6. Having considered the way in which the case is put by Mr Kibling today, slightly differently, to the way in which it is pleaded in the original grounds of appeal, we are satisfied that the appeal does raise arguable points of law which ought to proceed to a full appeal hearing. In particular, on the face of it the Tribunal at paragraph 11 of their reasons have arguably confused the ingredients of direct discrimination and victimisation, somehow combining the two in a way which the Appellant complaints means that Tribunal has not demonstrated the approach it has taken in law to the facts as found.
7. We shall say no more about the merits of the appeal other than that the case will proceed to a full hearing. It should be listed for 3 hours, category B. There will be exchange of skeleton arguments not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full hearing, copies to be lodged at the same time with the Employment Appeal Tribunal.