[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Green v. Robins and Day Ltd (t/a Warwick Wright Clapham) [2001] UKEAT 83_01_0506 (5 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/83_01_0506.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 83_1_506, [2001] UKEAT 83_01_0506

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant


 


JUDGE J ALTMAN

1. This is an appeal from the Employment Tribunal at London South on 21 July and 14 September 2000. The Decision given was headed "Summary Reasons", but it ran to some seven pages and was clearly Extended Reasons and is to be so treated for the purposes of this appeal.
2. We have been asked by Mr Neckles, the representative of the Appellant to adjourn today's hearing on the ground that he is unavailable. We have determined not to do so, because we are going to allow this matter to go forward to hearing on nearly all grounds and one put forward that we disallow is clearly an issue of fact, which cannot be argued for appeal.
3. We have recorded the reasons for allowing it to go forward, as follows: first, it is arguable that after paragraph 15(ii) of their Decision, paragraph 16 is a non sequitur. Having found an unfair hearing, can the Employment Tribunal say the Appellant contributed to the dismissal 100%, without considering what a fair hearing may have produced? The Employment Tribunal found the disciplinary hearing was not conducted by someone with an open mind.
4. Secondly, should the Employment Tribunal have considered, separately, contribution on the basic and the compensatory award.
5. Thirdly, should the Employment Tribunal have given reasons for such a high and unusual award, as 100%?
6. Fourthly, we do not prevent the argument, that the Appellant was given no opportunity to argue the contribution point.
7. Fifthly, could the Employment Tribunal have really been applying the Polkey test - the no difference test - and were they right to base their finding on their own view?
8. Sixthly, it seems to us arguable that the Employment Tribunal did not deal adequately with the question of disparity of treatment between employees.
9. However, we refuse to let the appeal go forward on grounds (b) and (b)(i) namely we do not permit the issue as to whether there was evidence before the Employment Tribunal of misconduct by the Appellant to be argued. In paragraph 4(v) the Employment Tribunal found that:

"…..the (Appellant) carried out some work on the vehicle"

In paragraph 4(ix) the Employment Tribunal recorded that the Respondents' investigatory interview with the Appellant showed that:

(i) the (Appellant) admitted doing work on the car;

(ii) the (Appellant) admitted covering some of the work done on the car on other jobs;

(iii) the (Appellant) after initially denying fitting any parts to the car, admitted fitting a number of parts.

As this case was about doing unrecorded work on a car to the advantage of a customer there was clearly evidence before the Employment Tribunal from which misconduct could be found, and grounds (b) and (b)(i) are dismissed

10. This matter will be heard before the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Category C, listed for one day, Skeleton Arguments not less than 14 days before the hearing, from each party.