[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Maragh v. Jamieson [2002] UKEAT 0364_01_1406 (14 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0364_01_1406.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 0364_01_1406, [2002] UKEAT 364_1_1406

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. The Appellant, Miss Maragh, was employed by the Respondent, Mrs Jamieson, as a trainee veterinary nurse in her veterinary practice from 1 April 1997 until 28 June 2000. She was the only non-white member of staff.
2. Following termination of her employment she complained to the Nottingham Employment Tribunal of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful racial discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages. The claims were resisted.
3. That complaint came before a Tribunal chaired by Mr T R Capp on 12 December 2000. Both parties appeared in person. By a decision promulgated with extended reasons on 26 January 2001 the Tribunal dismissed the complaints of both unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, on the basis that the Appellant was not dismissed; she resigned in circumstances not amounting to constructive dismissal. The unlawful deductions claim was withdrawn. Finally, the Employment Tribunal rejected the Appellant's complaint of unlawful racial discrimination. It is against that latter finding that this appeal is brought.
4. The basis of the appeal is that that Tribunal failed to make findings of primary fact on certain allegations of less favourable treatment, made by the Appellant and her witness Louise Joy, in reaching their conclusion that the complaint of racial discrimination was not made out.
5. This submission also formed the basis of a review application, made in writing by solicitors then instructed on behalf of the Appellant, which was dismissed by the full Tribunal at a review hearing held on 12 December 2001. That review decision was promulgated with summary reasons on 17 January 2002.
6. This appeal was initially listed for Preliminary Hearing on 24 October 2001, when the Appellant did not appear and was not represented. On that occasion the Preliminary Hearing was adjourned pending the outcome of the review application. That application, having now been determined, the matter is restored before us for Preliminary Hearing.
7. Today the Appellant does not appear and is not represented. Attempts to contact her have been unsuccessful. In these circumstances we have proceeded to consider the case on the basis of the papers.
8. The single point arising from the appeal is whether or not the Tribunal sufficiently set out their findings of primary fact for the purposes of adjudicating on the discrimination complaint. In this connection we bear in mind the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Anya v University of Oxford [2001] ICR 847. Looking at the Tribunal's reasons they, at paragraph 8, having considered all the evidence and representations, set out certain findings of fact.
9. So far as the complaints of less favourable treatment are concerned, at paragraph 12 they acknowledge that the Appellant was subject to criticism during the course of her employment, particularly in relation to poor punctuality. But they concluded, at paragraph 15, that insofar as this represented different and less favourable treatment than other employees, they accepted the Respondent's explanation; namely that the Appellant's record of lateness, and her previous record generally, warranted such action. Having accepted the explanation put forward by the Respondent the Tribunal, as they were entitled to do, then proceeded to dismiss the complaint of race discrimination.
10. In these circumstances we are not persuaded that the Tribunal's reasons disclose any arguable point of law fit to proceed to a full inter partes hearing, and accordingly this appeal must be dismissed.