[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Williams v Royal Institution Of Chartered Surveyors [1997] UKEAT 551_97_1011 (10 November 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/551_97_1011.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 551_97_1011

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

APPEARANCES

 

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


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by the Applicant, Miss D Williams, before the London (North) Industrial Tribunal sitting on 24 February 1997, against that Tribunal's decision to dismiss her complaint of unfair dismissal against her former employers, The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Extended Reasons for the Tribunal's decision are dated 7 March 1997.

The Facts

The Appellant was employed by the Respondent from 30 September 1985 until 2 August 1996 when she was dismissed on grounds of misconduct. She was at that time employed as a Marketing Manager.

The background we take from the Tribunal's Reasons. At the Respondent's 1995 Christmas party the Appellant became very drunk and was spoken to informally afterwards by her manager. She promised that this sort of thing would not happen again.

On 19 July 1996, after she had concluded an agreement with a supplier, she repaired to the bar at about 3.30 or possibly 4.00 o'clock in the afternoon and began drinking alcohol. At about 5.30 pm, after being in the bar throughout that time, she slid down the banisters from the first floor into the main hall, but then fell off and did herself an injury. She accepted that it was not the sort of conduct that she would take part in if she was sober, but insisted that she was just mildly drunk.

The Respondent held a disciplinary investigation. A hearing took place on 1 August. The facts were not in issue. The question was, what penalty ought to be imposed? The employer decided that dismissal was the appropriate penalty.

The Industrial Tribunal had the benefit of argument by Counsel on both sides and took into account the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant. In particular, they considered two procedural matters raised, but found that they did not render the dismissal unfair and more particularly, they found that in the particular circumstances of this case, dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to the employer, following the guidance of Lord Denning, MR in British Leyland v Swift [1981] IRLR 91.

Against the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the complaint, the Appellant appealed by a Notice dated 18 April 1997, in which she set out her grounds of appeal in this way:

"They [the Industrial Tribunal] misunderstood the nature of the events surrounding a previous Christmas party. There was no warning merely a notification that it had come to a senior member of staff's attention that I had seemed to have drunk a lot of alcohol. There was no request for a promise not to drink during working hours. I offered such a promise only after the events of 19 July."

Today, we have put this appeal to the end of our list because there has been no appearance by or on behalf of the Appellant. It is now 4.00 pm and, in the absence of attendance by or on behalf of the Appellant and in the absence of any explanation for that non-attendance, we have decided to consider this appeal on the basis of the documents.

This appeal discloses no arguable point of law. This was essentially a question for the industrial jury which decided it within permissible perameters. The grounds of appeal raise no question of law and, in these circumstances, the appeal must be dismissed.