United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE DAVID WILCOX: This is an appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal held at Stratford on 11, 12, 13 and 14 January 2000.

1. The Appellant was employed by the Homerton Hospital NHS Trust and she was dismissed by the Respondents. She complained that she was wrongfully dismissed. She also complains that she was discriminated against by the Respondents on the grounds of her race. In the course of her address to us today, she being supported by a member of the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme (ELAAS), who has helpfully interjected when necessary and has tendered advice to her. In the course of her submissions she identified two matters that cause her concern.
2. Firstly, that she was concerned that the Tribunal may have taken into account an account given by a colleague, Beverley Mills. She has put in a letter saying that Beverley Mills has in fact withdrawn that letter and secondly, she says that the Tribunal was biased against her.
3. Insofar as the first matter is concerned, it appears to us, perusing the recital of evidence taken into account by the Tribunal there was no great weight given to matters touched upon or concerning Beverley Mills in any event.
4. So far as the allegation of bias is concerned, it came about in this way, according to Miss Stephenson; that during the Tribunal hearing somebody came forward and gave a letter to the Tribunal Chairman. Before that he had been helpful and co-operative and he gave her reason, in her subjective and honest belief, that he was "with her" and was going to find for her. She tells us that after that letter was received she felt that he was not in fact expressing himself in a way that gave rise to her believing that he was still in her favour. There is no evidence that what went to the Chairman was anything other than an innocent communication in the course of administration.
5. It is clear to us, when we consider the earlier directions hearings, that he exercised a great deal of care and sensitivity in helping Miss Stephenson to frame her application and he permitted her to amend her Originating Application and we note that much later (we look to paragraph 7 of the Extended Reasons) even in the course of the hearing itself he permitted her to amend her case.
6. Looking at this matter, as we have to objectively and in the round, can find no reason for concluding that there was any matter that properly should give rise to concern in the mind of Miss Stephenson as to how the Tribunal itself was conducted. We then go to other matters relied upon by Miss Stephenson.
7. Firstly, this is an unfair dismissal case. We look to the procedures. This is a large employer. There were procedures put into operation by the employer relating to the allegations and concerns expressed by the employer. We note that it is recorded by the Tribunal in their reasons that a union representative was there when the disciplinary matters were looked into and it was found by the Tribunal that the procedure was properly and fairly complied with. So far as the allegations themselves are concerned, it appears to us that here was an Appellant, a recent employee in the position of training who was given supervision according to the findings of the Tribunal, who nonetheless seemed to resent that supervision. When settling into a new job, it is not easy, either for employer or for the Appellant. Mr Earley at the meeting on 19 February brought these matters properly to her attention, but more pertinently in a very long and comprehensive letter of 19 February set out the concerns so that she could attend to them, so that she knew in relation to the supervisor what she was to do in the future.
8. It is the subsequent matters following that warning and that comprehensive letter that gave rise to the dismissal; that is the incident between the Applicant and Nora Bristo and subsequent to that. Suffice it to say that those matters were very fully considered by the Tribunal. The evidence was considered and there was an abundance of evidence upon which a Tribunal, properly directing itself, could have come to a conclusion that this was in fact a dismissal that was warranted on the grounds of gross misconduct.
9. Equally, so far as allegations of racial discrimination and unfair treatment, there was no evidence before the Tribunal that would warrant them coming to those conclusions. We find that the Tribunal, exhaustively and comprehensively considered the complaints and concerns of Miss Stephenson and directed themselves properly in law. There are no matters of law in our judgment that properly can be shown to be in error, neither can this be characterised as a perverse decision.
10. We therefore dismiss the appeal.