[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Barker v. The Chairman of The Governors Wymondham College [1999] UKEAT 913_99_0511 (5 November 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/913_99_0511.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 913_99_511, [1999] UKEAT 913_99_0511

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Appellant Mr Barker responded to advertisements placed in the Eastern Daily Press Newspaper for the post of temporary relief matron and house matron/relief matron at Wymondham College, a state boarding and day school catering for boys and girls. At the relevant time, there were 881 pupils, 461 of whom were boarders divided as to 260 boys and 201 girls.

1. His application was rejected on the grounds that the post was restricted to female applicants. He thereupon commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal alleging unlawful sex discrimination on the part of the College's governing body, naming the Chairman of Governors as Respondent.
2. The case was listed for hearing at Norwich Employment Tribunal on 30^th April 1999. He applied for a postponement of that hearing which was refused by a Chairman, Mr D Crome. In the event, he did not attend the hearing before a tribunal chaired by

Mr C R Ash.

3. The Respondent's appeared represented by a solicitor, Mr Brabbins, and evidence was given on behalf of the Respondent by Mrs Owen Scott, Vice Principal of the College; Mr Himu Gupta, a former assistant director of social services for Norfolk County Council, and from the College Principal, Mr Haden. The Employment Tribunal accepted the evidence given by those witnesses. They also took into account the Appellants written representations.
4. Put shortly, the Respondent's defence to the claim rested on the provisions of section 7 of the sex discrimination act 1975, that being a woman was a genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) for the posts in question.
5. The case was put in three ways

(1) the job holder needed to be a woman to preserve decency or privacy; the matrons have contact with young girls in a state of undress and deal with their personal intimate matters. Further the matron shared living quarters section 7(2)(b).

(2) living quarters did not have separate facilities section 7(2)(c).

(3) The job holder provides individuals, the boarders, with personal services promoting their welfare or education, which services can most effectively be provided by a woman, section 7(2)(e).

6. The Tribunal upheld each of these three grounds. The Respondent established the GOQ defence. The complaint was dismissed by a decision with extended reasons dated 25^th May 1999. The Appellant applied for a review of that decision by letter dated 30^th May. That application was dismissed by the Chairman by letter of 28^th June. On the 27^th June, the Appellant lodged a notice of appeal against the Tribunal's substantive decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
7. This is a preliminary hearing held to determine whether the appeal raises any arguable point or points of law. The Appellant has indicated in correspondence that he does not intend to appear before us. However, he has submitted a skeleton argument which we have considered. In our judgement the points which the Appellant wishes to raise on appeal are essentially issues of fact. Were there female staff capable of carrying out the relevant duties whom it was reasonable to employ on those duties (section 7(4))? Did the physical layout of the premises cause a problem with preserving the decency and privacy of female boarders; was the Tribunal entitled to conclude that the matron should be a "surrogate mother figure"? Was there alternative living accommodation available?
8. Our jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law. It is not our function to allow litigants to reargue factural questions, particularly as here, where the Appellant failed to attend the Tribunal hearing in order to give evidence and argue his case. Having considered the Tribunals reasoning, we are quite satisfied that no arguable error of law is here made out. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.