Appeal No.	 EAT/241/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 11 May 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON
LORD DAVIES OF COITY CBE
MR R N STRAKER

RENTOKILL INITIAL SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED	APPELLANT

MR M EARLE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR J LADDIE
(of Counsel)
Instructed by
RENTOKILL INITIAL UK LIMITED
Legal Services Department
Garland Road
East Grinstead
West Sussex RH19 2DR	

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON:	We have listened with care to what Mr Laddie has to say on behalf of the prospective Appellant in this case and we have had regard to the detailed Notice of Appeal which was submitted.  We have also had regard to the decision of the Employment Tribunal, and in particular the matters of fact which it found proved and with which we are not entitled to interfere.  We have also considered the additional documents which Mr Laddie has put before the Tribunal this morning.  

	At the end of our deliberations, we concur with the finding expressed in paragaph 8 of the decision and Extended Reasons.  It seems to us quite clear that there were a number of things which ought to have been done and which were not done as part of the investigation.  It seems to us that the opinion of the Tribunal that there was no satisfactory investigation into this matter on the part of  Mr Keogh is amply justified.

	Paragraph 8 of the Extended Reasons goes on to give examples of things where there were shortcomings. The ninth paragraph goes on to deal with the position in law.  The Tribunal accepted that while Mr Keogh undoubtedly had a genuine belief himself that the Appellant was guilty of theft, nevertheless it was not based on reasonable grounds because there was a completely inadequate investigation before its decision was made to dismiss the Appellant on 29 May 1998.  Accordingly the Tribunal found that he had been unfairly dismissed.  They found as a fact that they preferred the evidence of the Appellant concerning the documents and other matters.  

	The decision goes on to say that, as the documents were the only evidence whatsoever linking the Appellant to the alleged theft, the Tribunal found that they should have been supplied to the Appellant to enable him to consider the matter in detail. The Respondents alleged that nevertheless even if this were the case, the Appellant was well aware of the precise allegation against him.  The Tribunal noted that it was only conveyed to the Applicant in general terms that he had stolen money from the vending machine on 24 December 1997.  

	There were very many technical matters which required investigation, for which the Appellant was entitled to be given all print outs and all assistance prior to the conclusion of any disciplinary proceeding and this was clearly not done.  

	Those are findings of fact which neither we nor any other Employment Appeal Tribunal on a full hearing may go behind.  Accordingly we are unanimously of the view that there are no reasonable prospects of success for this appeal were it to go to a full hearing and accordingly it is dismissed.