[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Townend & Sons Hull Ltd v Buckley [1998] UKEAT 514_98_2906 (29 June 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/514_98_2906.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 514_98_2906

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR ROBIN J RHODES (Advisor) Smaller Business Advisory Services 34-36 Streetly Lane Sutton Coldfield West Midlands B74 4TU


 


JUDGE J HULL QC: There are four grounds of appeal in paragraph 5 of the Notice of Appeal on which we base, with Mr Rhodes' assistance, our decision.

First of all, that the Tribunal referred to the Applicant's previous good record. It is said by Mr Rhodes that not only was his record not a good one but that the Tribunal's attention was invited to that by the contents of the IT3, the Notice of Appearance. He refers us to paragraph 7 in which it is set out that the Applicant had received a written warning about his negligence in leaving the keys in the ignition of his vehicle, which enabled some dishonest person to steal the vehicle and when it was recovered the wine and spirit on it were gone.

That complaint is somewhat strengthened by the fact that none of us had the second page of the IT3 grounds with our papers and it causes us to wonder (Mr Rhodes can say nothing to resolve this doubt) whether the Tribunal itself, through some mishap, had not got that second page and that enabled them to make what on the face of it is the wrong statement or, at any rate, a statement which ought to be qualified about this Applicant's good record.

There are other grounds. In paragraph 5.2 it is set out correctly that the Tribunal criticises the Respondent's failure to tell the employee about his right of appeal. But Mr Rhodes, who was present at the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal, tells us that the Applicant himself, in evidence, told the Tribunal that he knew of his right of appeal and did not pursue it as he thought the managing director had been very fair. On the face of it that is a false point, in attributing unfairness in that respect to the employer.

Paragraph 5.3 complains that the Tribunal said that there was "no interview of the security staff..." but, as Mr Rhodes says, the IT3 and indeed all evidence said that there had been a thorough review with the security company which provided the security staff. So again it is said that an important piece of evidence had been overlooked by the Tribunal.

Finally, the Tribunal criticise the employers for saying that the investigation took an extremely short time. Mr Rhodes makes a point, which may well be not quite such a strong point, that this was not the subject of any complaint by the employee. It is not suggested that he did not have time to do anything he wished to do or, in hindsight, that there was anything he might have done if he had had more time. Taken with the other matters we think that, again, is something which should be looked into.

We think that it is not necessary in the first instance to ask for the Chairman's Notes of Evidence, which may be voluminous. We ask that our office notify the Chairman of these grounds of appeal and in particular the fact that, through some mishap, we did not have the second page of the IT3. It would be as well to send both pages of the IT3 to the Chairman and ask her for her comments on these four grounds of appeal.

We say about the Notes of Evidence that if the Chairman's replies are unsatisfactory either to the Appellants or to the Respondent in the sense that they are thought not adequately to deal with these points and the Notes of Evidence therefore are asked for then the Application for Notes of Evidence can be made to our Registrar and, if necessary, referred to us and we will consider it.