Appeal No. EAT/1106/02/ZT

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 1 May 2003

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PROPHET
MISS A GALLICO
MR D A C LAMBERT

MRS A RENE	APPELLANT

ST JOHN AMBULANCE LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised 30/09/2003

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR TIMOTHY PULLEN
(of Counsel)
Lambeth Law Centre
Race Discrimination Unit
14 Bowden Street
Kennington
London
SE11 4DS	
For the Respondent	MS JENNIFER OWUSU
(Representative)
First Assist Group Ltd
Marshall Court
Marshall Road
Sutton
Surrey
SM1 9DU

JUDGE PROPHET:

1	A complaint of Unfair Dismissal and Race Discrimination was presented to the London Central Employment Tribunal by Mrs Rene against her former employers, St John Ambulance,
for whom she had worked as a Secretary for nearly four years.

2	The employer denied liability, saying that she had been fairly dismissed for redundancy and that no race discrimination was involved in that dismissal.  It was also pleaded that other allegations in the Originating Application of race discrimination were out of time.

3	An Employment Tribunal, under the Chairmanship of Ms Lewzey, with Mr Heath and Mr Kurukulaaratchy as the lay members, tackled these matters over a three day period on 3, 4 and 5 July 2002 and found unanimously that first, the allegation of race discrimination in respect of dismissal failed, secondly, the other allegations of race discrimination were out of time and that it was not just an equitable to extend time for their merits to be considered and, thirdly, that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed and was awarded compensation of £573.72, to which the Recruitment Regulations did not apply.

4	Both parties were legally represented at the Employment Tribunal Hearing.  Ms Chute, of Counsel, represented Mrs Rene and Mr Rees, Solicitor, represented the Employer.

5	The grounds of Appeal, as drafted by Ms Chute, were presented to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 1 October 2002 but these were later amended in a document received by the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 22 January 2003 following a decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal at a Hearing, with His Honour Judge J McMullen presiding, on 21 August 2002.  We are constituted here today to conduct that Full Hearing.
6	Mr Pullen, of Counsel, represents Mrs Rene and Ms Owusu, of Counsel, represents the Employer.  Mr Pullen has helpfully concentrated his submissions to us, in respect of race discrimination in respect of dismissal, on the basis of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Anya v University of Oxford [2001] IRLR 377.  He draws our attention, in particular, to Lord Justice Sedley’s statement at page 383

“25  ... it is the job of the tribunal of first instance not simply to set out the relevant evidential issues ... but to follow them through to a reasoned conclusion except to the extent that they become otiose. ...”

7	At paragraphs 43 and 44 of the Tribunal’s reasons, the Tribunal, under the heading “Conclusion on the Issue of Race Discrimination”, set out their considerations on the matters which they say they took into account in respect of race discrimination in respect of dismissal.  Paragraph 44 reads:
“The Tribunal was satisfied that the reason for dismissal was redundancy and there is nothing from which we can draw any inference that it was because of Mrs Rene’s race.  In these circumstance, it is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that Mrs Rene’s claim of racial discrimination in relation to her dismissal fails.”

8	Ms Owusu urges us to say that that suffices to indicate that the Employment Tribunal has fully taken into account and made reasoned conclusions as to any relevant previous allegations on matters which could throw light on whether there was race discrimination in the process of making Mrs Rene redundant, and also to the procedural defects in that process as found by the Employment Tribunal.  On the other hand, Mr Pullen says simply that they do not meet the standards required by the Decision in the Anya case.

9	We have considered that matter carefully and we find that we feel obliged to agree with Mr Pullen.  We are not able to discern from the Employment Tribunal’s Reasons that they have followed through that important process of reasoning as set out by Lord Justice Sedley.  That is a sufficient reason for this Appeal in respect of Race Discrimination in respect of dismissal to be allowed and for that matter to be remitted to a different Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

10	We now turn to the Appeal in respect of the compensation awarded in respect of the Employment Tribunal’s finding of Unfair Dismissal.  Again, we find Mr Pullen’s submission compelling in that there appears to be no proper conclusion reached by the Employment Tribunal in paragraph 50.1 of their reasons as to which employees should have been taken into the pool before a decision was reached to dismiss Mrs Rene.  Without a finding on that, it is difficult to sustain the Employment Tribunal’s conclusion, as indicated in paragraph 52, that the compensation should be assessed and limited as there stated.  Consequently, we also allow the Appeal in respect of the assessment of compensation for Unfair Dismissal.  That matter also will have to be reconsidered by the new Employment Tribunal.