United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

	Mr Carl Faulkner (Representative) 375 Huddersfield Road Oldham OL4 2RJ


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC

1. By an application dated 17 October 2000, Mr Marcelo Faulkner ("the Appellant") sought relief from an Employment Tribunal on the grounds of discrimination in access to employment training. The IT3, the reply put in by the Rochdale Borough Council, made clear the way the Respondent Council approached training placements under a scheme of positive action through training, in an effort to combat under-representation of Asian and black persons in its workforce practising certain trades. It averred that it was a lawful arrangement, pursuant to section 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
2. The matter came up for determination before an Employment Tribunal sitting in Manchester on 28 February when the Appellant, as here, was represented by his father. For reasons which they copiously gave, the Tribunal came to a unanimous decision that the Applicant's claim for direct racial discrimination was dismissed.
3. Clarification of that decision was sought by the Appellant and there was a review by the Chairman. The review decision was promulgated on 5 July 2001, from which it was made clear that indirect discrimination was not raised as an issue at the Tribunal.
4. The Notice of Appeal had in the meantime been received and the main ground, as we understand it, from the Appellant's father, of this appeal was that the Tribunal failed to draw an appropriate inference from the Respondent's own admission that discrimination was on the basis of racial appearance and not ethnic origin. That is a submission which the Appellant's father has developed before us in submissions. The Appellant had the opportunity of receiving advice from the ELAAS representative today, but has chosen to ask his father to address us on his behalf.
5. We cannot accept those submissions, it is quite clear to us that there was no discrimination, direct or indirect, although that was not pleaded in the manner in which the Appellant's application was treated by the Respondent Council. He filled out the form saying he was "White British". There was not, as Mr Faulkner would ask us to accept, a duty in those circumstances for the Council further to investigate what was meant by that phrase, in the context of the application form which had been filled out by the Appellant.
6. In these circumstances, we dismiss this appeal at this stage.