[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Fox v Aldenham School [1996] UKEAT 675_96_1410 (14 October 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/675_96_1410.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 675_96_1410

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	DR FOX (Appellant in person)


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether Dr Fox has shown any arguable point of law to merit an appeal going to a full tribunal against the unanimous decision of an Industrial Tribunal that she was not unfairly dismissed and had no entitlement to damages.

This is very unhappy case in many ways we think. The appellant a distinguished teacher was Head of the Modern Languages Department at Aldenham School. Because she is distinguished and because of her connections, she had organised for herself during the summer of 1994 to take up a fellowship at Cambridge for the whole of the Spring Term in 1995. This was to enable her to advance her own studies, and in particular, to develop her interests for the benefit of the school no doubt, with Eastern Europe.

The findings of fact by the Industrial Tribunal, with which this tribunal cannot interfere, because we do not see and hear the witnesses giving their evidence, was that the former headmaster of the school encouraged her to take up the fellowship and supported her application to Cambridge and wrote her a reference in order to enable her to have the sabbatical. Their finding was that whilst he was willing support her in that way, he, as an outgoing headmaster, recognised that the arrangements for the school for the Spring Term in 1995 were going to be a matter for the incoming headmaster who was taking up his duties at the beginning of September 1994.

It appears that there were discussions between Dr Fox and the incoming headmaster which might well legitimately have led her to believe that there was going to be no problem over her forthcoming sabbatical. She tells us that she was committed to take up the sabbatical at Cambridge, that others were involved and that it would not really be possible for her to decline to go ahead with it at such short notice.

The evidence before the Industrial Tribunal was that there was a further meeting with the headmaster, and by letter dated 18th September 1994, he told her that he would not grant her request for a sabbatical. Subsequently he indicated to her in a letter dated 10th October 1994 that, as she was indicating that she was going to take up the sabbatical at Cambridge come what may, she was dismissed. According to the finding of the Industrial Tribunal, she was notified of the appeal procedure which was not activated until after the trade union on her behalf wrote to the headmaster applying for a formal hearing with the Governors. That application was rejected on the grounds that it had not been timeously made.

Accordingly here was a distinguished teacher who had made it clear that she wanted to advance her own understanding for the benefit of the school during a short-term fellowship, and who believed that she would be given permission. But when she was refused permission, insisted on going ahead.

We all recognise and understand the position that Dr Fox had found herself in, but we then have to apply ourselves to the issue which was before the Industrial Tribunal: whether a reasonable employer acting fairly could have taken the view that her conduct in relation to this sabbatical was such as to justify dismissal. The terms of the statute dealing with unfair dismissal is drafted in wide form referring to equity, fairness and justice. It is written in that way so as to enable the tribunal to do justice between the parties, taking into account both sides point of view.

We have asked ourselves the question whether the Industrial Tribunal could be said to have acted perversely in the finding that they arrived at that the dismissal was fair. It is to be noted that Dr Fox did not have the advantage of a grievance procedure. She did not have the benefit of a representative to accompany her when entering into discussions which were plainly leading towards a potential dismissal, and she did not have any right to such a representative with the headmaster when he was taking his decision.

We understand that those submissions were fully before the Industrial Tribunal as is apparent from paragraphs 9 and 10 of their decision in particular. In our judgment although no doubt the Industrial Tribunal was exercised, as we are, by the breach of procedure, they concluded that despite procedural irregularity it did not render the dismissal unfair. That is not a finding which we feel is one with which we can interfere, because it does not appear to us to be perverse.

The only point which we wish to consider is this. Was Dr Fox given a fair hearing at the Industrial Tribunal having regard, I think, to these matters. Firstly, it is said that she received late in the day the file of documents on which the employers were intending to rely. That caused her considerable aggravation and difficulty. In particular, she wished to contact the outgoing headmaster who in the end turned up to give evidence in the tribunal. Secondly, at the hearing of the Industrial Tribunal she was not permitted to call two witnesses whom she wished to call, one of whom had made a written statement. The Industrial Tribunal were of view that this evidence was not probative of the matters in issue between the parties. The third ground on which she says she was not given a proper hearing is that she was not able to adduce evidence in her file in a form in which she wanted to put it in, but rather in a form which the respondents were putting it into. Finally, her diaries, which she believed would corroborate what was said, were not admitted in evidence.

We have thought about those points. It seems to us that it was for the Industrial Tribunal to determine whether the witnesses were capable of giving evidence probative of the matters in issue between the parties. It seems to us that it was undesirable that her bundle should, so to speak, be weeded by Counsel for the employers, but we do not understand that in the end she complained to the Industrial Tribunal that she had not been given a fair hearing in relation to those documents; and speaking for ourselves, we are of the view that the issue in the case was a very short one. It seems to us therefore, that there was unlikely to be any material in the file relating to her conduct prior to the Autumn of 1994 which was going to be of relevance to the matters in issue. It was what happened with the previous headmaster over the sabbatical; and what happened with the new headmaster over the sabbatical that this case turned upon. That was the issue, and the issue in the end was decided against this appellant.

We cannot deal with questions of fact, only points of law; and with some reluctance, we have come to conclusion that Dr Fox has not established an arguable point of law. The appeal must be dismissed.