[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hibernia Foods Ltd v. Wilson [2000] UKEAT 187_00_1705 (17 May 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/187_00_1705.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 187__1705, [2000] UKEAT 187_00_1705

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR MARTIN WEST Advocacy Manager on behalf of the Appellant


 


JUDGE CLARK

1. In a reserved decision with extended reasons promulgated on 22 December 1999, following a hearing held on 1 September and 15 November 1999, the Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Employment Tribunal upheld the Applicant, Mr Wilson's complaint of victimisation for Trade Union activities contrary to section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, against his employer the Respondent Hibernia Foods Ltd. In a nutshell, the Employment Tribunal found that in his application for post of Health & Safety Manager he was less favourably treated than the successful candidate by reason of his Trade Union activities. He was at the relevant time a member of the Baker Food and Allied Workers Union; a shop Steward, a safety representative and Chairman of his local Union branch.

Against that decision Hibernia now appeal.

2. In support of the appeal Mr West make the following submissions. First, that in paragraph 6 of their reasons the Employment Tribunal find that the Applicant was 1 day late with his application for the Health & Safety Manager's job, but was persuaded to apply for it by the Managing Director of the company, Mr Kilpatrick. Mr West's complaint is that the Employment Tribunal makes no further findings as to the circumstances in which the application was allowed to proceed out of time. In particular, whether Mrs Finley, the Human Resources Co-ordinator, was a party to that decision. In the overall context of the Employment Tribunal's reasons we are not satisfied that that was a material and necessary finding and we reject the first submission.
3. Second, it is said that the Employment Tribunal failed to resolve a factual conflict which is identified in paragraph 5 of their reasons. The conflict of evidence was between the Applicant and Mrs Finley, the former contending that as a result of his representation of two Trade Union members on the workforce, his relationship with Mrs Finley deteriorated, she denying any such deterioration.
4. We have looked at the Employment Tribunal's reasons as a whole as we are bound to do and we note that at paragraph 23 of their reasons the Employment Tribunal say this: -

"Having considered all of the evidence the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the reason why Mr Wilson was not put forward to Mr Kilpatrick for further interview was because he was involved with trade union activities and to an extent had lost favour with Mrs Finley. The Respondents have not demonstrated the Mr Wilson did not get the job because he did not have the right qualifications. They have in fact not demonstrated that the two candidates who did go forward for interview had the qualifications which the Respondent say are required."

5. In our view the finding in the first sentence of paragraph 23 sufficiently indicates to the reader that the Employment Tribunal concluded that in not putting forward the Applicant to the next round of interviews, Mrs Finley was motivated by her attitude towards the Applicant as a result of their dealings in his role as a Trade Union Representative.
6. Mr West's third and final submission is that even if they did properly consider Mrs Finley's motives in not putting the Applicant forward to the next round of interviews, they failed to give adequate reasons for their conclusions. Again, we reject that submission. It seems to us quite clear that the Employment Tribunal found that Mrs Finley was motivated against the Applicant because of his Trade Union activities and that view was supported by the lack of satisfactory explanation by the Respondent for the other 2 candidates going forward when they, in the view of the Employment Tribunal were unqualified for the post, whereas it appeared that the Applicant was qualified.
7. In these circumstances we have concluded that this appeal raises no arguable point of law and accordingly it must be dismissed at this preliminary hearing stage.