[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Jhankur v. Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust [2000] UKEAT 734_99_1206 (12 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/734_99_1206.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 734_99_1206

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR L BLACKMAN (Solicitor) Cedenio Associate Employment Law Consultant Suite 3, Oakwood House 4 The Parade Epsom, Surrey KT18 5DH
For the Respondent	MR P SAUNDERS (of Counsel) Messrs Capsticks General Accident Building 77 -83 Upper Richmond Road London SW15 2TT


 


HIS HONOR JUDGE CLARK

1. This is an appeal by the Appellant before the London (South) Employment Tribunal (Chairman: Mr D N Milton) sitting on 23 October 1998 and 17 – 18 March 1999, against that Employment Tribunal's decision, promulgated with extended reasons on 31 March 1999, dismissing his complaint of unfair dismissal brought against his former employer the Respondent NHS Trust.

Background

2. The Appellant was a long-standing employee with the Respondent and its predecessors, his period of continuous employment having commenced in October 1977. At the material times he was employed as home manager at the Respondents residential unit for the mentally handicapped at 1 Oakglade, Epsom.
3. He was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct with effect from 12 June 1998. The charge was that he had fraudulently altered receipts used for expense claims. Two instances were cited. First, that he had submitted a telephone bill issued by a Spanish hotel at which he had been staying with residents of the Epsom home on I June 1997; second that he had altered the date on a receipt from an Italian corner shop in Epsom, from 29 to 28 March 1998, the latter being that on which he had accompanied residents on a trip to Worthing.
4. The matters were investigated by an outside consultant, David Grant of South Coast Audit. Following receipt of his written report the Respondent carried out a disciplinary hearing conducted by Miss Sanches, the Respondent's deputy director, on 12 June 1998. She was satisfied that the Appellant was guilty of gross misconduct and summarily dismissed him.
5. Against that decision he appealed internally, that appeal being dismissed in due course by an appeal panel. He presented his claim of unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal on 22 July 1998.

The Employment Tribunal's Decision

6. The Employment Tribunal asked themselves whether the Respondent had carried out a proper investigation giving rise to reasonable grounds for a belief that the Appellant was guilty of the misconduct alleged, the classic Burchell test
7. They record at paragraph, 5 and 21 of their reasons that the Appellant had an exemplary and lengthy employment record. Nevertheless the Employment Tribunal concluded, at paragraph 22 of their reasons, as follows: -

"Having considered all the evidence in considerable detail during the course of these Tribunal hearings, we have come to the conclusion that there was no doubt at all that the Respondent honestly and genuinely believed that the Applicant was guilty of fraudulently altering the two receipts in question and that there was ample material before them to reach those conclusions. Whilst it is sad to see a family man lose his job and his good name after many years' service it is quite impossible for us to say that someone who is in a position of trust, in particular in relation to vulnerable clients, should not be dismissed for breaches of trust of the kind which was the subject of these proceedings."

The Tribunal held that the dismissal was fair.

The Appeal

8. The appeal came on for preliminary hearing before a division presided over by Lord Johnston sitting on 25 October 1999. In a short judgment delivered on that day his Lordship identified as the principal point for determination at a full appeal hearing the question as to whether the Tribunal, at paragraph 22, failed to consider whether dismissal was a reasonable response on the part of the Respondent.
9. We can deal with that concern quite shortly. First, we are satisfied that on a fair reading of paragraph 22 the Employment Tribunal did consider and apply the range of reasonable responses test. They found that dismissal for dishonesty in an employee in the Appellant's position fell within the range. Secondly, it is not disputed by Mr Blackman on behalf of the Appellant, that if the Appellant was guilty of the matters alleged against him then dismissal was an appropriate sanction.
10. His submissions today are directed to the proposition that on the facts here the Employment Tribunal could not as a matter of law have properly concluded that this employer had reasonable ground for belief that the Appellant was guilty of dishonesty. That is really a perversity argument. It depends upon an analysis of the underlying factual position which in our judgment is wholly untenable. We are satisfied that there was evidence before the Respondent which entitled the Tribunal to conclude that the employer had reasonable grounds for his honestly held belief, following a reasonable investigation, that the Appellant was guilty of dishonesty. That is sufficient to dispose of this appeal. In our judgment it raises no point of law. Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.