[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Oldham v. ARC Retail Management [2001] UKEAT 708_01_1910 (19 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/708_01_1910.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 708_01_1910, [2001] UKEAT 708_1_1910

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE J R REID QC:

1. This is the preliminary of an appeal in which the Appellant, Mr Oldham, does not appear. It is against the dismissal by an Employment Tribunal held at Bristol on 16 March 2001 of his claim for compensation under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
2. The brief facts of the matter, as appears from the hearing at which Mr Oldham likewise did not attend, are that on 18 October 2000 Mr Oldham saw an advertisement in the window of a store in Swindon, the store belonging to the Respondent, ARC Retail Management, the wording of which indicated that applicants were sought for the positions of Manageress, Assistant Manageress and sales staff.
3. The Applicant telephoned Miss Cenci, the Area Manager, about the post of Manageress. Miss Cenci informed him that the position of Manageress had been filled but invited him to apply for the position of Deputy Manageress. The Applicant drew Miss Cenci's attention to the gender specific wording of the advertisement and the advertisement was then removed from the store window and replaced by the second advertisement where the words "Manageress" and "Assistant Manageress" had been removed. The replacement advertisement referred only to the appointment of Assistant Manager and sales staff. The position of Manageress had in fact been filled two days before the telephone call made by Mr Oldham and the post was, of course, not open at the time when he had initially telephoned.
4. The position is that so far as the Manageress position is concerned Mr Oldham suffered no detriment or discrimination because the post had been filled before he rang to enquire about it. So far as the other posts advertised are concerned he suffered no detriment since he was not interested in them and despite being invited to apply for the post of Assistant Manageress he did not do so.
5. As the Tribunal noted, the case of Cardiff Womens Aid v Hartup in 1994 makes it plain that the placing of a discriminatory advertisement is not a discriminatory act within the meaning of Part II of the Act in relation to individuals. It is a matter which can be dealt with only an application by the Equal Opportunities Commission: see sections 38 and 72 of the Act and therefore no person or claim lay.
6. So far as any discrimination effecting him otherwise than under Part II is concerned, as a matter of fact there was none because as to one position it was already filled, and as to the other positions, he was not interested.
7. Mr Oldham has sent in written grounds of appeal saying that he is firmly of the view that the Respondents were in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act and that, in effect, the fact that they appointed a Manageress and as far as he knows they have no other male staff in the shop, suggest that they continue to be in breach of the Act. He invites this Tribunal to probe the matter with the Respondent. He asks that the decision of the Employment Tribunal be overturned and he appears to suggest that he has on a previous occasion had some success with a similar sort of application. He refers to a case T.M. Oldham v The Black Horse Business heard in Bristol in the year 2000 which, he says, is a case very similar. We doubt whether it is indeed a case very similar. It clearly must have been distinguishable because it would not have been open if the facts were identical to the Tribunal to have made him any award. The impression that Mr Oldham has managed to give is that he is the modern form of bounty hunter.

There is no merit in the proposed appeal and it will be dismissed.

8. The only matter on which we would comment is that we are slightly surprised that no award for costs was made against Mr Oldham and I trust that if he tries the same thing yet again in Bristol, a more hard-hearted Tribunal will on that occasion make an order for costs against him.
9. The appeal should not go further and will be dismissed at this stage.