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 >> Delta Synergistics Ltd v Young [1993] UKEAT 395_92_2402 (24 February 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/395_92_2402.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 395_92_2402 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR T S BATHO
MR D GLADWIN CBE JP
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR P J LEONARD
(General Manager)
Delta Synergistics Group
Delta House
Gold Hill West
Gerrards Cross
Bucks
SL9 9HH
For the Respondent The Respondent in person
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Delta Synergistics Limited against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Reading under the Chairmanship of Mr Warren, who, in a decision which was promulgated on the 28th April, found that Mr Young had been unfairly dismissed by his employers, the Appellants. They awarded him a sum of £9,018.22. That award is not apparent on the face of the decision but it can be gathered from the end of the Reasons themselves.
The Company appeal and raise the point, first, that the decision was wrong because on the face of the documentation it was clearly wrong on fact. Secondly, the conduct of Mr Young was such that they should have found that he had contributed to his dismissal and that that matter should have been taken into account by the Tribunal.
The case for the Appellants has been presented, very carefully, by Mr Leonard, and we are grateful to him. He is a new General Manager, who was not in post at the time of these matters, which occurred in 1991. We pointed out that we are only looking and only able to deal here with a point of law and that therefore it is with that in mind that we must examine the decision.
We may say at once that Mr Young is perhaps fortunate to have found himself with an award of £9,000 in the light of the whole history of his behaviour whilst employed by the Company and that had the Company taken a different course, or handled the matter differently, it is more than likely that he would have been dismissed and might have had difficulty in suggesting that it was unfair. However, the Company dealt with the matter before the Industrial Tribunal. They had an opportunity to do so, and the Tribunal were bound to deal with the issues as presented to them and as they found the facts on the day. In that they can be no way criticised.
There were a number of incidents which have been pointed out to us. There was one in March 1991 when Mr Young, who was employed as a Security Guard, in this business which was providing security on a number of sites, he was found asleep. Another one where he had been wrongfully using the telephone. Another one where he had been guilty, they say, of breach of Company rules by discussing matters with ex-members of the Company. There had been incidents where he had been asked to be taken off a site by the clients. All these matters were examined in detail by the Industrial Tribunal. Without going into each one what happened here, as we read the decision, was this. There had been a number of incidents, and there might well have been in the future if the Company waited a little longer, other incidents which were misconduct. Those matters were not, as found by the Tribunal, the matters upon which the Company relied for dismissing Mr Young.
The issue which gave rise to his dismissal was found to be a misunderstanding between Mr Young and Mr Withy over the question of his taking holiday in the August 1991. There were direct issues of fact between Mr Young and Mr Withy, and Mr Young's evidence was preferred, and between Mr Young and a controller, and his evidence was again preferred. So that, instead of there having been misconduct over the August period in connection with his holiday, there was no misconduct there was only misunderstanding. On the basis of misunderstanding the Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair, it was not misconduct, because it did not fall within the band of reasonable response of a reasonable employer. That was the basis of their decision. If that was the basis of the decision then there was no misconduct which could amount to a contribution towards the dismissal, because the dismissal was not based, as they found, on misconduct. There had been misconduct earlier but that was not relevant to the issue and they were dealt with in detail by the Tribunal.
We hope that that is explained to the Company, the situation as it appears to us, and as it appears in law. The tribunals are juries of fact, we are quite unable therefore to interfere with this decision. The appeal is dismissed.
