Appeal No.	 EAT/661/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 October 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR L D COWAN
MS D WARWICK

DV & DT PLAYER t/a LINDEN REST HOME	APPELLANT

(1) MRS S C JONES 
(2) MRS A M HARE	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	No appearance by or on behalf of Appellants	

	JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC:		This is a preliminary hearing in an appeal against a decision promulgated on 11 December 1997 of a Tribunal sitting in Liverpool when they held that both the employees, that is Mrs Jones and Mrs Hare, had been dismissed and what is more they had been dismissed unfairly.  The employers appeal.

	Quite shortly the facts are that the Appellants own and run a residential home called the Linden Rest Home.  Mr Player, senior, has day to day management responsibility.  Mrs Jones and Mrs Hare were senior supervisors in that home, both of them having being appointed in October 1987.  It was found by the Tribunal that Mrs Jones and Mr Player, Senior, did not get on well together.  Mr Player thought Mrs Jones was taciturn and Mrs Jones thought that Mr Player lost his temper easily, but there was no record of any disciplinary action at any time.

	On 7 March 1987, there was an instant in the breakfast room of the rest home.  Two of the residents started shouting and then hitting each other. Mrs Jones and Mrs Hare who were on duty that day, came into the room with their breakfast trolley, intervened and tried to placate them.  Mr Player Senior then arrived at the scene and intervened himself.  He seemed to have taken sides with one of the participants, Mrs Beggs against the other contestant, Mrs Guy, and although Mrs Jones and Mrs Hare tried to explain what the problem was, Mr Player seems to have got irate with Mrs Guy, causing Mrs Guy to raise her hand to him on one occasion.  Eventually he is alleged by Mrs Jones and Mrs Hare to have caught hold of Mrs Guy and to have shaken her by her arms.  This caused Mrs Jones and Mrs Hare to intervene to cause him to desist, and the incidence was sufficiently serious to cause Mrs Jones and Mrs Hare to write a report for the benefit of a Mrs Gallahager, who is Head of care, and eventually the incident was entered into the report book.

	This entry was in due course seen by Mr Player Senior, and on 9 March, two days later, he called in Mrs Jones and Mrs Hare and rebuked them for the pack of lies he said they had written in the report.  He then and there (according to Mrs Jones) promptly sacked her and, when there was disagreement about the authorship of the report, he then turned on Mrs Hare and sacked her.  Both of them were told to get out of the home.

	Mrs Hare was offered her job back, but she was not inclined to take it back, and accordingly, she remained, as she had originally been, dismissed.

	Sofaras the law is concerned, the Employment Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was not clear.  It seemed that Mrs Jones was sacked for writing the report, but the Notice of Appearance entered by the Appellants, indicated she was sacked for rudeness and incompetence, and for making a false allegation to Social.  The IT3 went on to say:  

“She then defied me to fire her.  So I did.”

	So far as Mrs Hare is concerned, it is contended that she had not been dismissed, but that she left of her own accord because she had been offered her job back twice over, and she declined to come back.

	When we come to the Notices of Appeal, the Notice of Appeal alleged that Mrs Jones had been sacked for a gross breach of contract. Mrs Hare had not been dismissed, but the Notice of Appeal went on to say, that both had been dismissed because they:

“...were guilty of abuse to a resident, by withholding required medication, prescribed by the Doctor, and the patient suffered severe mental trauma.”

	The Tribunal felt that there was doubt as to the precise reason why these two ladies had been dismissed, but took the view that if the Respondents failed to prove the reason, well then a finding of unfair dismissal was automatic.  The Employment Tribunal also criticised the employer, Mr Player on the basis that he quite plainly had lost his temper at the interview on 9 March and as a result, had followed none of the guideline procedures which have to be complied with for a disciplinary hearing and subsequent dismissal.   On procedural grounds, therefore, they also concluded the dismissal to be unfair.

	In consequence, the Tribunal came to a finding that, in both instances, the Respondents had been dismissed unfairly.  In the absence of the Appellant or any representative to plead his case on his behalf, we have checked through the facts of this case, and find that all the findings of facts made by the Tribunal are reasonable.  So far as the application of the law is concerned, we can see no error in the Tribunal’s application of it.  In all the circumstances we find that there is no arguable ground upon which a full hearing of this Tribunal could disturb the Tribunal’s findings.  Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.