At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR D CHADWICK
MRS M T PROSSER
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
For the Appellant | MS FINDLAY (of Counsel) Instructed By: Royal College of Nursing 67-69 Harbourne Court Harbourne Road Edgbaston Birmingham West Midlands B15 3BU |
JUDGE PETER CLARK:
The appellant, who is of Indian ethnic origin, was employed by the respondent as a registered nurse at their Tatchbury Manor Nursing Home, near Southampton, from 20 April 1999 until her resignation, effective on 29 July 2000. By her originating application she set out particulars of 10 heads of complaint which she contended, separately or cumulatively, amounted to less favourable treatment on grounds of her race (the discrimination complaint) and to a fundamental breach of the implied contractual term of mutual trust and confidence entitling her to treat herself as constructively dismissed.
The Tribunal considered each of those heads of complaint individually, making findings of primary fact where a dispute arose, between evidence given by the appellant on her own behalf, and, by principally, Mrs Hartog, the Matron/Manager of the Home and also Mr S S Adkar, Managing Director of the respondent. In short, where a conflict occurred, the Tribunal preferred the evidence given on behalf of the respondent. Having found the facts, the Tribunal concluded:-
(a) that the appellant was not less favourably treated than others, but if she was it was not on racial grounds and
(b) that taken singly or cumulatively there was no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence but that, in any event, the effective cause of the appellant's resignation was the fact that she found another job at Southampton General Hospital which suited her, it being a short bus ride from her accommodation.
Ms Findlay's principal line of attack is directed to the Tribunal's fact-finding and reasoning. It is well established that a Tribunal is under a duty to make all necessary findings of primary fact from which proper inferences may, where appropriate, be drawn, Anya v University of Oxford [2001] IRLR 377 and that adequate reasons for their ultimate conclusion should be properly expressed, Flannery v Halifax Estate Agents [2001] 1 AER 373.