Appeal No.	 EAT/681/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 7 March 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MRS T A MARSLAND
MRS D M PALMER

MR Y IDLBI	APPELLANT

EARLS COURT INTERNATIONAL HOTEL & TRADE FAIR COMPLEX	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):   This is a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not there is a point of law raised by Mr Idlbi in a prospective appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on 25th April 1996 which unanimously dismissed his complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex.

	Mr Idlbi has not appeared before us this afternoon. He is not required to do so. We have considered with care the grounds of his application which were sent to us by facsimile on 19th June 1996. 

	The brief facts relating to this matter may be shortly stated. Mr Idlbi made a claim against his former employers. He was employed by them as a hotel receptionist and cashier from 6th October 1992 until his summary dismissal on 11th September 1995. The reason why he was dismissed related to the employer’s perception of his conduct. For reasons which are not relevant, in August 1995 a search had been carried out of Mr Idlbi’s flat by the police and they had discovered in the course of their search some documents which form part of the documentary process which the hotel used when guests wanted to change their foreign currency into Sterling. He was seen by his employers and asked about these documents. His response was that he carried out small foreign exchange transactions as a hobby, as he put it, and indicated that he would pick up pink slips for transactions which were not completed so that he had a ready reference to the current rate of exchange for particular currencies.

	The conclusion which the employers arrived at was this:

“It would appear from examining these pink receipt slips and our accounts that Mr Idlbi had been banking foreign currency of our guests. However rather than banking the currency as required, he keeps it. The guest will get all the sterling equivalent and at the hotel exchange rate and the receipt is filled out. He then replaces the amount of sterling taken from the till with his own cash in order to keep the floats level correct. He then removes the foreign currency from the hotel and is free to exchange at a more favourable rate elsewhere. This conduct is obviously contrary to hotel procedures and we the hotel will lose profit on each transaction which is carried out as described above, by Mr Idlbi.”

Accordingly, he was dismissed.

	The question before the Industrial Tribunal was, as they correctly directed themselves, whether the employers were reasonably entitled to arrive that conclusion having regard to the need to carry out a reasonable investigation into the circumstances and thereafter to apply their minds in a sensible and fair way as to what the sanction should be in the event that they believed that there had been misconduct. The conclusion arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal was that he had manifestly been fairly dismissed. They rejected any suggestion that he had been picked on because of his sex or race, and in the circumstances we consider that that was a finding which was inevitable given the facts.

	Mr Idlbi says in his facsimile that he was not given a fair opportunity to provide the investigators, his employers, with documents which would have shown that there was no dishonesty at all on his part. He adds:

“... until the Tribunal proceedings, I was not aware that I had been dismissed for dishonesty.”

	It seem to us with respect to the appellant in this case, that he had every opportunity before the Industrial Tribunal, since he was represented by Counsel, to present any evidence which he felt would be of assistance to his case. If he had further material which was not presented to the Industrial Tribunal, then he has only himself or his lawyer to blame. It seems to us that the Industrial Tribunal have carefully looked at the facts. They considered with great care the explanation which he put before them. That rejection of his case is to be found in paragraph 9 of their decision. They say this:

“9	However we look on both receipts with some suspicion since we cannot understand how if Mr Idlbi was innocent of the allegations made against him, he could fail to produce those receipts to show he had come by the foreign currency legitimately. We also found it very difficult to accept his explanation as to why he picked up the discarded pink slips to assist him in calculating the daily rates of exchange. He gave us no satisfactory explanation as to why he had to pick up 5 slips on the same day in respect of the same currency when it is unlikely there would be any change in the rate. We also find it unconvincing that Mr Idlbi would need to do his calculations by reference to a slip when he would have had access to the rates of all currencies which were posted on the board at the hotel every day and he could have done all necessary calculations with a pocket calculator.”

It seems to us that that shows that the tribunal have fully understood the nature of the case and the answers being put forward on the employee’s behalf.

	It seems to us with great respect therefore, that there is no merit whatever in the Notice of Appeal in the sense that it raises no arguable point of law. Our jurisdiction is confined to dealing with appeals which raise a point of law. Mr Idlbi seeks to reargue the case on the facts. That he cannot do. Accordingly there being no point of law this appeal will be dismissed.