BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Charles v Vandervell Ltd [1992] UKEAT 697_91_0311 (3 November 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/697_91_0311.html Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 697_91_0311, [1992] UKEAT 697_91_311 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR S A CHARLES
(In Person)
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): Mr Charles, the Applicant before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Reading, had his case heard over some 4 days in the Summer of 1991. He was alleging against his employers, Vandervell Ltd, racial discrimination and unfair dismissal. The racial discrimination, as we understand it, was alleged in two Originating Applications, the first was received on the 26th November 1990 and the second on the 23rd January 1991. The second alleging victimisation because of his presentation of the earlier application. His third application was dated in March 1991 and that alleged unfair dismissal. Having heard the case the Tribunal reached the following decisions.
Mr Charles failed in his allegation of racial discrimination. He succeeded in his allegation of unfair dismissal and subsequently a compensation hearing took place in the Summer of 1992 when he was found to have contributed towards his dismissal to the extent of 25% and he tells us that the amount awarded in compensation was in excess of £2,000.
He appeals to this Tribunal on the issue of racial discrimination.
Mr Charles was employed by Vandervell Limited from the 22nd January 1989. He started as a tool setter/grinder, and no complaints were made about his work until about the July of 1990. The practice in the Company is that if there is a vacancy, then first of all it is advertised internally. Mr Charles was keen for promotion and to increase his pay.
In August 1990 he heard from a colleague that he had applied for a job and had an appointment on the 29th August. Subsequently to that Mr Read, who was the Tooling Foreman, told Mr Charles that two surface grinding jobs on the computer numerical control machines, known as "CNC", were available. Mr Charles expressed an interest in all of them. Mr Read told him he did not think he would get the job, but nevertheless, Mr Charles applied.
The history of what happened thereafter is set out in the greatest detail in some 13 or 14 pages of this decision. It will not help anyone to recite the whole of the evidence on one side and the evidence on the other, but it is quite clear that the Tribunal took the greatest care to examine, to dissect and to draw conclusions from all that evidence.
The finding of "unfair dismissal" is to be found at the end of the decision in paragraphs 21 to 24 but prior to that in paragraphs 12 to 20 the Tribunal deal with the issue of racial discrimination. If one looks at the Race Relations Act 1976 there are various bases upon which discrimination can be alleged. They are set out in Section 4. The definition of racial discrimination is to be found in Section 1. The Tribunal did not actually set out in its decision the provisions of Section 1, nor the provisions of Section 4. It was examining the question of whether Mr Charles had established direct discrimination, as he alleged, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.
However, the fact that they took those provisions into account is quite apparent because in paragraphs 12 to 14 the Tribunal consider the well known decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeal dealing with the problems which face applicants in seeking to establish racial discrimination. So all those matters were in mind. Then they looked at the facts and in paragraphs 15 to 18 they examine four of the specific complaints made by Mr Charles.
The first complaint was that when he was interviewed initially for employment, he had been promised an opportunity for promotion. The Tribunal rejected that suggestion; they think there had been a discussion about promotion but there was no question of him being promised promotion. They therefore reject his first claim that he had been so promised.
Secondly, in paragraph 16, the Tribunal look at the posts which were available and they said in that paragraph:
"Mr Charles also complained that his application for promotion at the end of August 1990 was not given fair and proper treatment. However the Tribunal accepts that there were no posts available at that time and that Mr Godfrey did all he could to reassure Mr Charles in that respect."
So they find against him on that second matter.
Then one of the major complaints that Mr Charles was making was the question of training and tests so that he could achieve promotion to a higher grade. Both Mr Charles and an Asian member of the staff were sent on the tests and both failed. The Tribunal deal with this and they say in paragraph 17:
"The Tribunal considers that Mr Charles was over-ambitious in the course of training which he then chose and we are satisfied that Mr Godfrey was aware of this. However he told us, and we accept that he did caution Mr Charles about the difficulty of the course which he had chosen. Subsequently he was also unsuccessful in an in-house opportunity for training and making a test piece."
So there again, the Tribunal examine this question of training and testing and they find that Mr Charles was not adversely treated.
Finally, they look at a suggestion that a Mr Daniels had received earlier promotion whereas the suggestion was that it was not made upon merit. The Tribunal find that it was made upon merit.
So they summarise their views in paragraphs 19 and 20 and those we will quote. In paragraph 19 they say:
"In considering the complaints based upon discrimination, we have had regard also to the circumstances of Mr Charles's dismissal about which we shall have more to say below but we do not consider that there are any matters arising from the events of February and March 1991, or from the earlier matters complained of upon which we can find facts from which we should draw inferences of discrimination.
The applications based on that ground therefore fail."
The first two applications were therefore unsuccessful.
In this Court we can only interfere with a decision of an Industrial Tribunal if there is an error of law. We have explained that to Mr Charles, we cannot help him unless, there is an error of law. He has been successful on his allegation of unfair dismissal. He indicated to us that he wished to allege that there had been a breach of contract upon which he might claim damages. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with that and that would have to be dealt with in a County Court. We are limited in the approach that we can take to these cases and at this preliminary hearing we are looking to see whether there is an error of law which merits argument with both of the parties present. I am afraid we have reached the conclusion here that we cannot help Mr Charles, there is no error of law in the way this Tribunal reached its decision. This appeal is dismissed.
