 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> J D Williams & Co Ltd v Shearer [1993] UKEAT 730_92_0507 (5 July 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/730_92_0507.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 730_92_507, [1993] UKEAT 730_92_0507 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC
MR E HAMMOND OBE
MR J C RAMSAY
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR R D HENRY
(Lay Representative)
Collinson Grant
Consultants Ltd
Colgran House
20 Worsley Road
Swinton
Manchester
M27 1WW
JUDGE J HULL QC: This employee complained to the Tribunal of unfairness in her dismissal and the Tribunal heard her evidence and a good deal of other evidence too and reached the conclusion that the matters relied on were too trivial for any employer to treat them as justifying dismissal.
There was of course an alternative view which was put forward which was that this was really a case of dishonesty and that although it might be a case of petty dishonesty in each case, it was dishonesty of some long standing, that is to say there were a number of incidents. The Tribunal had to consider that and it formed the view that she was perfectly honest and it was not a case of pilfering or anything like that but of minor irregularities; and they formed the view then, having heard all the evidence, that it was a case in which they felt that the employers had acted unreasonably. That was a matter for the Tribunal and having considered the matter as carefully as we can and in particular what is said to us on behalf of the employers we have come to the conclusion that this is not a case where it could be said that no reasonable tribunal could have reached the decision which they did. We think it was within their powers to do so, having heard the evidence, and having considered that evidence as carefully as they very obviously did. In those circumstances we find that no point of law is disclosed and so the appeal is dismissed.