Title: Appeal No.
Author: JEMERSON
Last saved by: Joe
Company: Employment Tribunal Service

Appeal No.	 EAT/969/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 October 2001

Before
HER HONOUR JUDGE A WAKEFIELD
LORD  DAVIES OF COITY  CBE
MISS C HOLROYD

MR R K GULATI	APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant | The Appellant in person

JUDGE A WAKEFIELD

1	This is an ex parte preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Ravinder Gulati against a Decision promulgated on 22 June 2000 of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South by which, following a ten day hearing in October 1999, his complaints raised in three Originating Applications of race discrimination, sex discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal were all dismissed.  

2	The Appellant had been employed by the Respondent as an administrative officer.  The first two Originating Applications were presented during the continuance of that employment and the third was presented following the termination of the employment on 5 March 1999.  

3	In Notices of Appearance, the Respondents denied all complaints as to discrimination, victimisation and harassment and claimed that the dismissal was for capability and was fair.  

4	The Notice of Appeal, in seventeen paragraphs, raises grounds which fall broadly under three heads: firstly that the Employment Tribunal failed to deal with certain matters at all, in particular victimisation under the Race Relations Act and discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act;  secondly that, having regard to the evidence which they had heard, the Employment Tribunal findings were wrong and such as no Tribunal properly directing itself in the law could have reached;  thirdly that the Employment Tribunal acted improperly in the course of the hearing.  

5	As to the first two of these broad categories of complaint, we are satisfied, having carefully considered in turn, each of the matters raised by the Appellant in his Notice of Appeal and in his Skeleton Argument and oral argument before us today, that they have no merit.  

6	The Employment Tribunal held a lengthy hearing, during which it heard from numerous witnesses and had to consider differing versions of many contentious discussions, remarks and events.  The Decision, which runs to thirty pages, sets out the findings of fact as to these events and the reasons for those findings.  It specifically deals with the complaints of victimisation and finds that they are of no substance.  

7	As to disability discrimination, no such complaint was raised in the Originating Applications and therefore was not before the Tribunal.  Whilst it is clear that the Appellant is extremely unhappy with the resolution by the Employment Tribunal of the disputes of fact in that by and large, his versions of events was rejected, we are satisfied that the Employment Tribunal was fully entitled to reach the conclusions which it did.  

8	As to the allegations of misconduct at the Tribunal during the hearing, these are set out in a document separate from the Notice of Appeal and relate to two broad matters.  Firstly, alleged improper conduct of a lay member, Mr T Austin.  What is said of Mr Austin is this:
“Mr Austin dozed continually in most morning and afternoon sessions on 7 working days of the hearing, except for the first day of the case when the hearing was adjourned in the morning session itself and the last day, when the case finished at an extended morning session.  Thus his judgment is impaired, and he is liable to be influenced by Mr Warren - the Chairman, against whom various complaints are mentioned below.”

Then in relation the Chairman, it said that he was biased and/or indulged in improper conduct in the course of the hearing.  

9	The Appellant has, as required, filed an affidavit in support of these allegations.  The allegations are then commented upon by the Chairman, in a document which was received by this Appeal Tribunal on 18 December 2000.  The Counsel who appeared at the Tribunal on behalf of the Respondents has also been invited to, and has commented on, the allegations in the Appellant’s affidavit.  

10	This Appeal Tribunal always takes very seriously any allegations of improper conduct of a Tribunal member during a hearing.  As here, the details of such alleged conduct are required to be specified on oath by the complainant, and to be considered point by point and answered by the Chairman and other members, as relevant. 

11	Having considered the allegations in this case and the responses by the Chairman and by Counsel, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the complaints, such as would justify a full hearing of this appeal on that ground.  The Appellant did not, at the appropriate time before the Tribunal, raise any issue as to failure of a member of the Tribunal to give full attention to the proceedings.  Having received the bundle of documents late, he was given a full day to consider any which were new to him.  He was offered assistance with presentation during the hearing, but largely declined help.  We are satisfied that there was no bias or improper conduct, as alleged, by the Chairman.  We are also satisfied that Mr Austin did not, as alleged, doze continually.  

12	The only matter which causes us concern is the long delay between the hearing and the promulgation of the Decision: such a delay should always be avoided.  However, we are satisfied that the delay did not impact on the Decision itself.  It is clear to us from that Decision that the facts were fully marshalled, the law properly applied and the findings fully justified.  This appeal cannot succeed and is dismissed.

© Copyright 2001

EAT/969/00

EAT/969/00
-  -