Appeal No.	 EAT/491/99  

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 15 July 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JOHN WILSON
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE 
MR P A L PARKER CBE

MS B CLARKE	APPELLANT

ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON & CHELSEA 

& OTHERS	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MS M BUTLER
(of Counsel)
Instructed By:
Messrs Knox Ukiwa & Co
Solicitors
82 Borough High Street
London  SE1 1LL	

JUDGE WILSON:	This has been the preliminary hearing of the Appellant’s case concerning the decision of the Employment Tribunal that her complaints of racial discrimination and victimisation were not made out and were dismissed.  That was the decision of the Employment Tribunal, which had heard evidence in the matter over six or seven days and issued its decision on 19 February 1999.

1	In its decision, which is an extremely full document of 14/15 pages, the Tribunal sets out the evidence that it heard and the findings of fact with regard to each of the four complaints made by the Appellant, and concludes after a review of the evidence, with regard to each separate complaint, that the complaint is not made out.  

2	This morning, Ms Butler on behalf of the Appellant, has expanded upon her skeleton argument which amplified her six points of appeal.  They were that:  the Tribunal failed to consider the general test of fairness in the decision to dismiss having regard to all circumstances of the case; that in deciding that issue, the Tribunal failed to consider fully, or at all, questions to do with the size and administrative resources of the employer; that in applying the tests of reasonableness or fairness, no consideration was taken of the Appellant’s length of service and that she had spent some 12 years in library service, and that the decision to dismiss was primarily based on poor report writing.  Fourthly, Ms Butler submitted that the Tribunal had erred in finding that the Applicant’s evidence, having established a prima facie case, erred in finding that the explanations of the employer were adequate, and erred in failing to draw an inference of racial stereotyping, when the only vacancy being suggested was a junior post, where the majority of post holders were members of black and ethnic minorities.  

3	We have tested each of those submissions as amplified by Ms Butler against the decision and we find that with regard to all of them, the Employment Tribunal has dealt fully and accurately and applied the law properly.  Mainly they are findings of fact and that, of course, is Ms Butler’s difficulty.  This Tribunal is not permitted to interfere with findings of fact if they are properly made, nor can we interfere with assessment of witnesses because it is the Employment Tribunal, which has seen and heard the witnesses.  

4	In this case, the principal witness for the Respondent Borough made a good impression on the Tribunal and the Tribunal felt they could rely on her evidence.  As I have said, with regard to each of the four complaints, the Tribunal has come to findings based on facts.  They have found the complaints not to have been proved.  In those circumstances, we can see no prospect of success, were this matter to go to full argument, and accordingly this appeal must be dismissed at this stage.