Appeal No. EAT/193/93

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 20 September 1994

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FRENCH

	DR P D WICKENS OBE

	MR G H WRIGHT MBE

(1) JOHN CRILLEY & SON 	APPELLANTS
(2) G FISKEN

MR C GRANT	RESPONDENT

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MR EASON RAJAH
(OF COUNSEL)
Lloyd Cooper
Solicitors
7a Grafton Street
London W1X 3LA

For the Respondent	MR R WILSON
(OF COUNSEL)
	Messrs Makanda
	Paul Anthony House
	724 Holloway Road
	London N19 3JD

	MR JUSTICE FRENCH:  We have considered very carefully all the papers in this case and we have also considered very carefully the able arguments of Counsel on both sides.  In the end the key question is whether the manner in which the Respondent was dismissed was a manner in which the Appellant would have dismissed a white employee.  Whether Amey was or was not a person for whose actions the Appellant was vicariously responsible is, in our judgment, of little relevance.  The manner in which the Respondent was dismissed was on any view open to criticism.  No reasons were given and the Respondent was addressed as "boy".  The Tribunal were bound to ask themselves, and did ask themselves, whether the Appellant would have dismissed a white employee in that manner.  They concluded that the answer was "No".  There was material on which they could so conclude.  It was conceded on behalf of the Appellant that the dismissal was unfair.  The remaining question was - Was that unfairness the result of racial discrimination?  These were matters properly addressed by the Industrial Tribunal.  We find no reason to conclude that their decision was wrong.

	Accordingly this appeal must be dismissed.