[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Harvey v Leicester General Hospital NHS Trust [1999] UKEAT 1381_98_3006 (30 June 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1381_98_3006.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1381_98_3006

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK:

1. This is, as the Chairman of Leicester Employment Tribunal, Mr David Price said in a letter to this tribunal dated 26th February 1999, commenting on the appellant's affidavit, sworn in these proceedings on 22nd October 1998, a sad case.
2. The appellant, who is black, commenced employment with the respondent as a State Enrolled Nurse on 10th September 1971. She worked without problems on the night shift in the Urology Department. In 1995 she applied to take the conversion course leading to Registered General Nurse (RGN) status. She was accepted on the course, which consisted partly of written testing and partly in practical assessments. For the latter purpose she was transferred to day work, when most of the clinical work was done.
3. It was following that transfer that her problems began. In short, the respondents became concerned at certain perceived shortcomings in performance. Various meetings were held relating to her performance. Although she passed Part A of the course, the written work, her mentor, Staff Nurse Parker, refused to certify that she had reached the necessary competence levels.
4. Disciplinary proceedings followed. Her performance was not thought to have improved despite efforts to help her. On 14th October 1997 she was told that she had failed the course. On 7th November she raised a grievance complaining that the intensity of supervision of her work prevented her from properly discharging her duties. Finally, on 26th November 1997 the appellant tendered her resignation from the employment which took effect on 31st December 1997.
5. Having left, she presented an Originating Application to the Employment Tribunal on 27th March 1998, claiming unlawful racial discrimination and unfair dismissal. The claims were denied by the respondent. In particular, it was denied that she had been dismissed.
6. The matter came before the tribunal on 4th August 1998. By a decision with extended reasons promulgated on 18th August 1998 both claims were dismissed. Having set out the history the tribunal concluded:

(1) That there was no less favourable treatment of the appellant than any other person of whatever race in similar circumstances. The respondent had throughout acted in the best interests of the appellant; she had been properly supervised. The assessment of her abilities by Miss Parker was accurate and fair.

(2) That there was no breach of contract let alone a fundamental breach of contract by the respondent entitling the appellant to treat herself as constructively dismissed.

7. Before us, Mrs Harvey asks us to put right a wrong. She says that the conclusions reached by the Employment Tribunal were not right and not fair. In particular, their findings in the conclusion section of their reasons that, for example - the respondent took steps to help her by devising learning scheme for her, that her performance on the day shift was below the standard required, that she made insufficient improvement and that the clinical assessment made by Miss Parker was accurate and fair - are simply wrong.
8. We have endeavoured to explain to Mrs Harvey the limit on our jurisdiction. We can only interfere with an Employment Tribunal decision where an error of law is made out.
9. Mrs Harvey tells us that she puts her appeal on the ground of perversity. That is a much-used word in this Court. It means that the tribunal has reached a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal properly directing itself could reach; that the finding was irrational; an impermissible option and other similar epithets.
10. We are quite satisfied that in this appeal Mrs Harvey is seeking, in effect, a rehearing of the factual issues which were before the Employment Tribunal. That is not a matter with which we can be involved.
11. With considerable regret, in the case of a person with many years service in the health service, we have reached the conclusion that this appeal raises no arguable point of law and, consequently, it must be dismissed.