[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Shaikhani v. Pfizer Ltd [2001] UKEAT 0214_01_2507 (25 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0214_01_2507.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 0214_01_2507, [2001] UKEAT 214_1_2507

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR HOSSAIN SHAIKHANI (The Appellant in person)


 


MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN

1. This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mr Hossain Shaikhani from a decision of the Employment Tribunal at Ashford, the Extended Reasons being sent out on 8 December 2000, the Chairman being Mr G W Davies. The Tribunal dismissed Mr Shaikhani's application against Pfizer Ltd finding that he had suffered no discrimination on the grounds of his race. His primary ground of appeal is unusual in that he makes no criticism of the decision of the Employment Tribunal on the question they were asked to decide, that was: was racial discrimination proved? His ground of appeal is that his solicitor and counsel were negligent in not arguing a case of victimisation. He appears to challenge a particular finding of fact, namely that there was no contact between Mr Colman of Pfizer, who interviewed him for a job, and a Dr Phillips, an employee of Mr Shaikhani's former employers, Wyeth Laboratories.
2. We summarise the agreed background. In 1991 and 1992 Mr Shaikhani was employed by Wyeth Laboratories as a Statistician, a job for which he is extremely well qualified. He left them, alleging racial discrimination. His claim on that ground to an Industrial Tribunal was compromised. After employment in other fields in the United Kingdom and Iran, in 1998 he left his details with a specialist employment agency who passed his CV to Pfizer Ltd. He was interviewed in London and then was called for a second full interview at Pfizer's premises in Sandwich. He had an interview with several members of Pfizer's staff, including Mr Colman. himself a Statistician, and Mr Tuckwood, a Personnel Officer. His application was unsuccessful. His IT1 claims racial prejudice. It was 6 months out of time but he successfully applied to the Tribunal for an extension at a Preliminary Hearing. The case presented on his behalf at the main hearing by counsel was that there was racial discrimination. His belief was that Dr Phillips from Wyeth Laboratories had spoken to Mr Colman providing, what he called, negative feedback, based on his employment at Wyeth. The Tribunal found that there had been no conversation between Mr Colman and Dr Phillips. During his interview Mr Colman accepted that he had asked Mr Shaikhani if Dr Phillips was still at Wyeth and Mr Shaikhani said that he thought he was. Mr Colman's evidence was that he and Dr Phillips had worked together some years before. The Tribunal found that this conversation was for the purpose of putting Mr Shaikhani at his ease. The Tribunal found that Mr Colman was a completely honest witness and Mr Shaikhani does not suggest that Mr Colman had discriminated on racial grounds.
3. As Mr Shaikhani does not criticise the finding on racial discrimination, we mention only briefly the reasons given for Pfizer's rejection of him. He was rejected because of his limited experience in the pharmaceutical industry, his tendency to change jobs frequently and his inexperience of modern statistical methods. In our view however regrettable this may be for Mr Shaikhani this appeal should not proceed further to a Full Hearing. No error of law is asserted by Mr Shaikhani. The finding in relation to the absence of contact between Dr Phillips and Mr Colman is one that, on their assessment of the witnesses, the Tribunal was fully entitled to make. If solicitors and counsel presented the wrong case then Mr Shaikhani should take advice as to whether he has any redress against them. He can, unfortunately, have no redress on that topic in this appeal, which is dismissed.