Appeal No. EAT/392/92
	I N T E R N A L

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 26th February 1993

	Before

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC

	MRS M EXLEY

	MR W MORRIS

T COSTA	APPELLANT

WATFORD AUTOMOBILES	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR F WILSON
(Of Counsel)
Ranga & Co
112 High Road
Willesden
NW10 2PN

	JUDGE HARGROVE QC:  This is a preliminary hearing and three points are taken against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, the circumstances were these:  that the Appellant was a forecourt manager, he was held to have been fairly dismissed.  The till which was under his control was found to be £134.99 short on a check which had followed a complaint.  There was a canister beside the till which contained pieces of paper.  The account given to the Tribunal, and that was an account which the management accepted, was that this Appellant had endeavoured to eat the paper, which were alleged to have been IOUs.  He was also asked to account for why there was, in the safe, a gold chain and credit cards.  Apparently he merely shrugged his shoulders when that was put to him.

	The Tribunal's findings were these.  Later on the same day the Director and General Manager interviewed him, in his office, in the presence of Mr Wigmore and Mr Fernandes, he was asked for an explanation of the till deficit and for the presence of the gold chain and credit cards and why he had not reported them to his superiors.  He had no explanation.  It was decided to suspend him for two weeks whilst further investigation took place and on the 5th August he was asked to report back.  He was given a further opportunity to explain his conduct.  His reaction was to say he did not accept there would be any deficiency in the till at all, and he was dismissed.

	The objection made was that first of all there was no proper investigation.  The Tribunal found as a fact that there was, in these terms:
"We find as a fact that he [the Appellant] was present in the room when the till was checked and that he was given an opportunity to explain the till deficiency and the presence of the gold chain and credit cards in the safe.

The reason for dismissal, according to Mr King, who took the decision to dismiss, was that the Applicant had failed to heed all previous warnings both verbal and written and had continued to operate outside company policy as stated in the Notice of Appearance.  Mr King said that he did not believe that the Applicant had stolen the money . . .  He was satisfied that the Applicant had received a number of verbal warnings given to him by the previous Company forecourt manager, Mr Turner as well as from himself.  He had received two written warnings from Mr Turner as well as a memoranda drawing attention to his failings . . ."

It is quite clear that the Tribunal found that there was adequate investigation and that aspect of the appeal, which is merely aimed at the facts of the case, has no merit whatsoever.  It is also said that the Tribunal was in error in law in failing to allow a full scale re-investigation of the warnings which the Appellant had received.  There appears to be no reply, in writing, to these warnings from the Appellant at any stage.  In our view the Tribunal was correct in refusing to allow an extension of consideration of these matters bearing in mind that the oldest of those letters was as early as the 13th November 1989. 

	It is said that this is a case which is contrary to natural justice, again, in our view that raises no point upon the papers and in those circumstances we order that no further step be taken in this appeal.