 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ganaeshalingham v Prime Garages Ltd [1996] UKEAT 1115_95_2103 (21 March 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1115_95_2103.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1115_95_2103 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE N BUTTER QC
MR A E R MANNERS
MRS T A MARSLAND
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR P J M HAWTHORNE
Solicitor
Messrs Witham Weld
Solicitors
70 St George's Square
London
SW1V 3RD
JUDGE N BUTTER QC: This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by the employee in respect of a decision of an Industrial Tribunal at London (South). The hearing was from 24 to 27 July 1995 and the decision was sent out to the parties on 16 August 1995.
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that, "the Applicant's complaint of racial discrimination is dismissed", but that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed. This preliminary appeal relates to the first part of that decision.
The Applicant's complaints had, in fact, come before a different Industrial Tribunal, as far back as 1991. There was then an appeal to the EAT, who remitted the matter to a freshly constituted Industrial Tribunal. It was that latter Tribunal which dealt with the matters in July 1995.
The extended reasons for the decision set out the background in circumstances which it is unnecessary for me to recite in the course of this judgment. The main issue which we have to consider relates to the question of the stock discrepancies and to the allegation by the Applicant that the employers showed racial discrimination.
The main point before us concerns the way in which a so-called comparator was dealt with. In paragraph 9 of the extended reasons, the Tribunal deal with that, saying that the representative of the Applicant:
"9. ... asked the Tribunal to draw inferences of racial discrimination from the alleged disparity of treatment between the Applicant and Mr Lethbridge, manager of the Respondent's Wandsworth site. He was guilty of stock discrepancies but was not subjected to discipline. However, we accept the Respondent's contention that the cases were not comparable. In Mr Lethbridge's case, the discrepancies were plain to see from the documents; in the Applicant's case they were concealed."
The Tribunal go on in paragraph 10 to say:
"10. The Applicant made general and specific allegations of racial bias on the part of the Respondent but these allegations were not based on any independent evidence and were strongly disputed. We find that they were without merit. We have to say that in all disputed matters we prefer the Respondent's evidence to that of the Applicant."
The Tribunal then went on to deal with the separate question of unfair dismissal arising out of procedural faults in the dismissal.
Today, on behalf of the Applicant, Mr Hawthorne seeks to persuade us, either there was error of law or, at least, that the Tribunal approached the matter in the wrong way and that they were not entitled to reach the decision that they did and/or did not attach appropriate weight to the fact that Mr Lethbridge, the so-called comparator, had not been the subject of disciplinary proceedings.
We have considered these arguments, but we are unanimous in our view, the Tribunal approached the matter correctly and carefully. There are, in truth, no grounds at all for this appeal.
It follows, there is no point in the appeal proceeding further and the appeal is dismissed.