Appeal No.	 EAT/653/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 28 January 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR R H PHIPPS
MR A D TUFFIN CBE

MR S CHUTTOO	APPELLANT

GREENWICH HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR T A CEDENIO
(Consultant)
Employment Advice & Tribunal Service
32 Castle Road
Epsom
Surrey
KT18 7NZ

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	This is the Applicant’s appeal against a decision of the London (South) Industrial Tribunal, dismissing his complaint of unfair dismissal against the Respondent employer for the reasons set out in full in a Decision dated 2 May 1996.

	The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a Team Leader at the Memorial Hospital, Shooters Hill.  He is a qualified nurse.  On 25 July 1995 an allegation was made that he had kicked a patient known as SC.  An investigation followed.  A disciplinary hearing was held before Eileen Mulherne, Service Manager for Elderly Services on 7 November 1994.  Having heard the case she summarily dismissed the Applicant by letter dated 9 November 1994.

	An appeal to the Director, Community Services was heard on 15 December 1994.  It was dismissed by letter dated 21 December.

	The Applicant exercised a further right of appeal to the Trust Board.  That appeal also failed.

	Having set out the facts in its Extended Reasons the Tribunal directed itself as to the law and, in particular the guidance to be found in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1980] ICR 303 Note.

	One matter specifically considered was whether the employer had carried out a proper investigation before concluding that the Applicant was guilty of assaulting the patient.  The Tribunal found that it had.

	In this appeal Mr Cedenio argues that that finding was perverse.  He refers to the fact that there was no medical evidence to show bruising to the patient in the relevant area of her body; no witness from the appeal panel gave evidence before the Industrial Tribunal and new evidence in the form of a note from the patient was put before the appeal panel.

	As a member of this Appeal Tribunal put to Mr Cedinio, these matters were all argued out before the Industrial Tribunal.  That Tribunal took those matters into account in reaching its conclusion.  We can see no prospect of a finding at a full Appeal Tribunal hearing that such a conclusion was perverse.

	In these circumstances the appeal is dismissed.