[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hussain v First Service Management Ltd & Anor [1997] UKEAT 617_97_1310 (13 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/617_97_1310.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 617_97_1310

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR E GRANT (Representative) Northern Complainant Aid Fund Checkpoint 45 Westgate Bradford BD1 2TH


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by Mr Hussain against a decision of the Leeds Industrial Tribunal promulgated with Extended Reasons on 12 March 1997, dismissing his complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against First Management Ltd and its joint Managing Director, Mr Stead.

The nature of his complaint was that the Respondents had discriminated against him on the grounds of his race, he is black and of Asian ethnic origin, in not shortlisting him for the advertised post of Purchasing Sales and Quotations Administrator.

First Management commenced operations on about 1 July 1996. It is part of United Dominions Trust Ltd, and was set up to provide vehicle management solutions to the fleet industry. Mr Stead was recruited as joint Managing Director from JCT 600 Contracts Ltd of Leeds.

The Appellant had brought a complaint of unlawful racial discrimination against JCT 600 on 2 July 1996. He later withdrew it. The complaint related to a job application which he had made to that Company when Mr Stead worked there.

In April and June 1996, the Appellant made application to First Management in respect of job vacancies which were given different job titles, but ultimately came down to the post which we have identified earlier in this judgment.

Each of the Appellant's applications was rejected without shortlisting for interview. Throughout the relevant period the Appellant engaged in extensive communication, by telephone and letter, enquiring as to why he had not been shortlisted.

In rejecting the Appellant's complaints the Tribunal found, so far as is material to this appeal, that in respect of the third advertisement, the Appellant had received less favourable treatment in that he was not shortlisted; that he was of a different race to those shortlisted and it rejected the Respondent's explanation that he was less well qualified than the shortlisted applicants in relation to that advertisement. However, the majority members of the Tribunal were not prepared to draw an inference of unlawful discrimination, applying the principles identified by Neill LJ in King v Great Britain China Centre [1991] IRLR 513. They found that the reason for the less favourable treatment was not the Appellant's race, but that he had made a nuisance of himself by constantly writing and telephoning the Company. Accordingly they rejected the complaint. The minority member, however, would have drawn an adverse inference from the facts as found and would have decided the complaint in the Appellant's favour.

In this appeal Mr Grant, on behalf of the Appellant, accepts that as a matter of law the majority was entitled to reach the conclusion which it did on its findings. It was not bound to infer unlawful discrimination. However, his instructions from Mr Hussain, who represented himself below, are that the majority incorrectly recorded Mr Stead's evidence that the Appellant had made a nuisance of himself by telephoning and writing to the Respondents so often, and the Respondent's representative's reference to that fact in his closing submissions.

In our judgment the findings of the Industrial Tribunal are clear. It is not our function to re-examine the evidence to find a possible ground of appeal. In these circumstances we are not satisfied that any point of law arises in this appeal. Our jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law.

Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed at this preliminary hearing stage.