[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Witney v Parisa Ltd (t/a Parisa Wine Shop) [2003] UKEAT 0208_02_0703 (7 March 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/0208_02_0703.html Cite as: [2003] UKEAT 208_2_703, [2003] UKEAT 0208_02_0703

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR LAWRENCE DAVIES (Solicitor) North Lambeth Law Centre 14 Bowden Street Kennington London SE11 4DS
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE PROPHET

1. Ms Witney was employed for a brief period (four months) as a Sales Assistant at the Respondent's wine shop at Horseferry Road. Her employment ended in early May 2001. She originally complained to an Employment Tribunal at London (South) of wrongful dismissal, though subsequently added a further complaint of race discrimination which was accepted as an amendment to her application.
2. The Employment Tribunal, sitting on 8 August 2001 and then again on 28 and 9 November 2001 with Ms E C Hide as Chairman, dismissed her complaint of race discrimination. Both sides were represented by Counsel. The complaint of wrongful dismissal was withdrawn at the hearing.
3. Ms Witney's Notice of Appeal against the finding by the Tribunal was in the form of a letter from herself to the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 26 January 2002. That was accompanied by a brief statement from her which was not before the Employment Tribunal.
4. On the basis of her Notice of Appeal and presumably having reference to that statement, at a preliminary hearing of the appeal, the matter was allowed to proceed to a full hearing and it is that full hearing which we are considering today.
5. Reference back to that letter from Ms Witney indicates that she was complaining that the Employment Tribunal had failed to make basic findings of fact and drew appropriate references. However, it is somewhat difficult to discern from the contents of her letter what the error of law was alleged to be which would justify an appeal being granted.
6. We have, however, today had the advantage of representation on her behalf by Mr Davies (Solicitor) from the North Lambeth Law Centre. He has indicated that the substance of the appeal is that the reasons do not meet the well-known Meek test. The employer is in administrative receivership, and is not in attendance.
7. Mr Davies has concentrated his submissions to us today on two matters. First, the failure by the Employment Tribunal to make a finding of fact as to whether Mr Witney resigned or was dismissed. He says that without such a finding the Tribunal could not properly assess whether there was or was not race discrimination. His second point is that there was no determination by the Employment Tribunal as to whether an alleged failure to pay Ms Witney properly amounted to race discrimination.
8. Taking the first point, Mr Davies is correct that the Tribunal did not make a finding on the issue of whether she resigned or was dismissed. What the Tribunal did was to say that so far as race discrimination was concerned (that of course being the only matter which they were considering), either way they could not find from the evidence presented to it any less favourable treatment on the grounds of race.
9. Also, at paragraph 9 of their decision, they deal expressly with the situation on the basis that Ms Witney was dismissed. At paragraph 9 they say:

9 "There was no evidence that Ms Witney was dismissed because, as a person of Chinese ethnic origin, she was less favourably treated than a hypothetical comparator not of Chinese ethnic origin, or that she suffered any other detriment during her employment on this basis."

10. If the Employment Tribunal, having considered the evidence presented to it, could discern no less favourable treatment on the grounds of race, and that that was so whether she was dismissed or not, that must suffice as a proper finding by the Tribunal on the issue before it, i.e. was Ms Witney racially discriminated against.
11. We move to the second submission from Mr Davies. We can find no indication that the Employment Tribunal was called upon to decide whether an alleged failure to pay Ms Witney properly for the work she had done constituted race discrimination. It is not clear whether the settlement on breach of contract was in respect of her being paid 10p per hour less that others, or whether it was non-payment for hours worked, but that was dealt with in monetary terms without calling upon the Tribunal. If that matter was also being put forward at the hearing as constituting race discrimination, there is no reference to that in the submissions recorded by the Employment Tribunal at page 7 of the Reasons. It is reasonable to assume, bearing in mind that Ms Witney was represented by Counsel at the Employment Tribunal, that if it was a matter upon which a clear determination by the Employment Tribunal was required, it would have been asked for by Counsel. In any case, the Employment Tribunal were considering relevant evidence over three days, at the end of which they could find no basis at all for race discrimination.
12. Having therefore carefully considered Mr Davies's helpful submissions to us on Ms Witney's behalf, it is the unanimous conclusion of this Tribunal that this appeal is dismissed.