[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Murray v. Cleburne Ltd [2001] UKEAT 1038_00_1607 (16 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1038_00_1607.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1038_00_1607, [2001] UKEAT 1038__1607

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN

1. We have before us today an appeal by the Appellant Mr John Murray. He wrote to the Registrar saying that he would be on holiday on this date and gave no other explanation as to why he would be unable to attend. If that was the only instance of Mr Murray asking for a date to be vacated we might have looked favourably upon it and not proceeded to a hearing, but he has had two previous dates for hearing, 5 February, when the matter was dealt with administratively and at his request the hearing date was vacated, and then at a hearing before this Tribunal on 25 April 2001 the matter again, on his application, had to be adjourned and re-listed for today. We do not give Mr Murray a further opportunity.
2. This is an appeal from the Employment Tribunal sitting at London North, the Chairman Mr J R Hill, the Extended Reasons were sent out on 5 July 2000, when the Application made by the Appellant for unfair dismissal was dismissed. Mr Murray applied jointly with a Mr Keeling both of them being employed by the Respondents as security guards at an office block in the City of London. Mr Keeling failed in his Application and his appeal was dismissed on the merits, but in his absence, on 25 April 2001. Both men were accused of taking time off on shifts which had been paid for. Both were interviewed. Following that there was a disciplinary hearing at which neither attended. The decision was made that they should be dismissed for gross misconduct. They appealed and the appeal hearing was treated as a completely fresh hearing. The case of each man was heard separately with Mr Murray in fact acting as a representative not only for himself but also for Mr Keeling. The hearing lasted two days and the dismissal was confirmed.
3. The Employment Tribunal after a careful review of the evidence was satisfied that the Respondents had reached the conclusion that there was gross misconduct which was a reason that a reasonable employer would reach given the allegations of dishonesty. The Tribunal also found that the way in which that decision was reached was fair.
4. Mr Murray's grounds of appeal consist of criticism of the evidence of Mr Joinson, the Respondent's manager, who conducted the investigation and the hearing. He wished to appeal:

"Because I feel I was not given the opportunity to prove my innocence against my employers claims."

An appeal to this Appeal Tribunal is only on questions of law. No question of law is raised in his grounds of appeal. He does not suggest that the decision was perverse or a decision that an Employment Tribunal properly directing itself could not arrive at. In all those circumstances this appeal is dismissed.