[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Morris v Network South Central [1997] UKEAT 8_97_1604 (16 April 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/8_97_1604.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 8_97_1604

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS HEAL (Of Counsel) ELAAS


 


MR JUSTICE LINDSAY: We have before us the appeal of Mr B Morris against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal under the Chairmanship of Mr J A E Gorst, sent to the parties on 12 October 1996. The decision in proceedings between Mr Morris and his employer, Network South Central, was that the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed.

It seems to us this is a sad case where, as it would seem, personal difficulties between ex-husband and ex-wife have found their way into the work place. There had been earlier warnings to Mr Morris which the Industrial Tribunal set out in their Extended Reasons at paragraph 3. One then comes to the triggering events of 8 August 1995. The Industrial Tribunal received three written descriptions of an incident. They received them from a Mr Gerald Marchant, from Mr Morris's ex-wife Mrs Sue Morris, and from Mr Bowles, a senior supervisor. As the Industrial Tribunal found the matter it came to this: that Mr Morris, an employee of the company, went to his wife's work place, also at company premises. He knew that he should not have been on company premises. He accepts that he was then abusive to her. Mr Gerald Marchant said that Mr Morris had grabbed Mrs Morris [the ex-wife] and had abused her verbally. Mrs Morris said in her written statement that she had been grabbed by the shoulder by Mr Morris and that he had shouted abuse at her. Mr Bowles said that Mrs Morris had come to him in a distressed state and had complained of Mr Morris's abuse.

There was a disciplinary hearing at which Mr Morris was represented by a union representative, a fellow employee, and there was an appeal. Again, Mr Morris was represented by the same fellow employee, a union representative. What the Tribunal found in their Extended Reasons was this:

"8 The Respondents' reason for dismissing the Applicant was because, despite two final warnings, he had gone without their permission to his ex-wife's place of work and assaulted and abused her. Their view was that she like any other employee or member of the public was entitled to be protected from assault and abuse and that they were justified in dismissing the Applicant."

Mr Morris complains that Mr Gerald Marchant and Mrs Morris were not called as witnesses. That is the case. Their evidence was given by way of written statement. If he had wished - and he was in person below, so one has to expect some degree of latitude - that their written evidence should not be accepted in written form, but that their evidence should be given only by way of their attendance and their giving of oral evidence followed by their cross-examination upon that oral evidence, then he should have asked the Tribunal at the time. That, it seems, was not done. It is far too late now to ask for an opportunity to review the matter when that initial opportunity was not taken. Then he complains that Mr Marchant's brother, Mr T Marchant, had assaulted him. That, if relevant at all, should have been brought out at the hearing. It is not mentioned in the Industrial Tribunal's Extended Reasons. We have no reason to think any weight was given to the matter and it does not seem to us that any weight need have been given to the matter. We do not see the matter of Mr T Marchant as leading to any error of law. Mr Morris denies that he assaulted his ex-wife. That is a pure matter of fact and we have no reason to see any error of law in the findings of the Industrial Tribunal on that subject.

Indeed, notwithstanding that Mr Morris has now had the advantage of legal advice before us, in the sense that Ms Heal has argued his case for him, doing the best we can, both with his most informal Notice of Appeal, with its Extended Form, and with argument as put to us by Ms Heal, we are unable to detect any error of law in the conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal.

Accordingly we do not see it as right that this matter should go to a full hearing.