[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Reuters Ltd v. Snowden [1999] UKEAT 242_99_2705 (27 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/242_99_2705.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 242_99_2705

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR S GILL (of Counsel) KLC Advisory Services 86 Smithbrook Kilns Horsham Road Cranleigh Surrey GU6 8JJ


 


JUDGE HAROLD WILSON: This preliminary hearing, at which the proposed appellant has been represented by Mr Gill, concerns the proposed appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that the original applicant in this case was unfairly dismissed although he contributed to his misfortune by 30%. We have listened with care to what Mr Gill has had to say, but it seems to us that there are no matters of law about which we can interfere. As for the facts, we cannot interfere by substituting our view for that of the tribunal who heard the matter at first instance.

The crucial paragraphs are to be found in the decision. What had happened here was that Mr Snowden, the respondent to this appeal, had worked for the Company for nearly four years and was Client Training Executive. On one occasion he was late for an appointment, and when he did arrive he smelled of drink. Thereafter during the course of his visit, he did not behave in an appropriate way and left early without waiting for his account manager to arrive. Mr Snowden says that he was dismissed without warning because an extremely sensitive client had complained. The appellant Company says Mr Snowden was thoroughly unprofessional and that what happened to him was perfectly fair.

The Employment Tribunal heard all the evidence and they then directed themselves, according to the law as it is contained in s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They found that Mr Snowden was basically dismissed for his late arrival at the office, smelling of drink and for not remaining to see his manager. The tribunal went on to say that they found that the appellant Company:

"3 … did not act reasonably in all the circumstances taking into account the size of their operation and the fact that this was one error on the part of the Applicant who had no previous disciplinary record."

The tribunal go on to say:

"4 We are aware that we should not substitute our own view for that of the employer [but] we do not find that in this case dismissal was in the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer."

Therefore, they found that the dismissal was unfair.

We are invited to say that there was an error in law in that finding. It was a finding that was open to that tribunal. Other tribunals might not have come to the same conclusion, but we cannot go behind it. Accordingly, we can see no prospect of success if this matter were to go forward for full argument and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.