United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR B UDUJE (of Counsel) Instructed by: The Solicitor London Underground Ltd 55 Broadway London SW1H 0BA


 


MR JUSTICE NELSON: This is a preliminary hearing in which the appellants, London Underground Ltd, appeal from a decision of the Employment Tribunal, sitting at London (North) on 25th November 1999, when the respondent, Mr Shah, an employee of the appellants, was awarded compensation of £13,100 for unfair dismissal.

1. The tribunal found that the reason for the dismissal was the respondent's own conduct, in the sense that he had consumed alcohol against a background of a zero tolerance attitude towards alcohol because of the safety risks involved in the service operated by the appellants, and had consumed it in such quantities that when tested, some hours later, he was found to be over the appropriate limit. The tribunal found that that was the reason for the dismissal and emphasised the safety aspect in coming to their conclusion at paragraph 20(5) of the liability decision.
2. The only reasons upon which the tribunal found that there had been an unfair dismissal entitling the respondent to any sum was a procedural fault by the appellants in two respects, both of which had nothing to do with the merit itself of the dismissal. They went on to find that, taking into account the conduct of the respondent, it was appropriate to reduce the award by 50%.
3. It is said by the appellant in the matter now before us that that was a finding, which given the strength of the findings made against the respondent and his responsibility for his dismissal, was wholly inappropriate, such that it can be properly said that it was perverse. The case of Nairne v Highland and Islands Fire Brigade [1989] IRLR 366, has been cited to us. It is said that this is an appropriate case to go to appeal on that ground.
4. There are other subsidiary grounds and in addition another main ground, namely that compensation was awarded to the respondent for a period of two years when the tribunal had in fact found that had the matter been adjourned, as had been requested and should have been granted, it would have been heard some four weeks after the time it was heard and the result would still have been the same, namely the respondent would still have been dismissed. In those circumstances, it is argued today and in the grounds of appeal, that an award of future loss over a period of two years was quite inappropriate.
5. We have heard the helpful submission made to us by Mr Uduje on behalf of the appellants, and considered all the grounds that are set out in the Notice of Appeal. We are satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case, having heard the argument and having considered each of the grounds, that this is an appropriate case to go to a full hearing and, furthermore, that it should go to a full hearing on all the grounds which are set in the Notice of Appeal. Accordingly, that is the order that we make.