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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Araromi v Whitbread Plc (t/a Thresher) [1996] UKEAT 837_96_2711 (27 November 1996)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/837_96_2711.html
Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 837_96_2711

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


BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 837_96_2711
Appeal No. EAT/837/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 27 November 1996

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)

LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP

MISS A MACKIE OBE



MR T ARAROMI APPELLANT

WHITBREAD PLC T/A THRESHER RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 1996


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MR ARAROMI
    (In Person)
       


     

    MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether Mr Araromi has an arguable point of law in relation to an Industrial Tribunal's decision following a two-day hearing which was given on 4 June 1996.

    By their decision the Industrial Tribunal unanimously rejected his complaint that he had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of his race and that he was entitled to no compensation following their other finding that he had been unfairly dismissed. We can only entertain appeals on arguable grounds of law.

    It seems to us that, at first sight, the Industrial Tribunal decision can be described as very conscientious and careful in its approach to the allegations of race discrimination and, I think to his credit, Mr Araromi would not dispute that that is the prima facie view of the decision. I refer in particular, but will not recite paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of their decision.

    However, what is said in support of the application before us today at this preliminary hearing, is that there are matters to which the Industrial Tribunal have not paid, either any or any sufficient attention.

    The first relates to the re-employment by his employers of an employee whom he, the Appellant, had dismissed, following language which had taken place between the two of them at the shop of which he was the Manager. What he says is, and we understand the point, that his employers owed it to him to at least notify him that she had been re-employed, because by re-employing her they could appear to have been giving support to her and thus undermining his authority as a Manager. It is correct to record that we cannot find anything in the decision which directly bears on this point, although they do indicate the underlying facts.

    We, for our part, do not consider that that contention which has been put before us, would affect the decision which was arrived at after the careful consideration by the Industrial Tribunal. We fully understand the point that is being made and should add that it seems to us that a fair and competent employer should have notified the applicant, as he suggests, for the very reason he has given.

    The second point is that on the day of the dismissal of this individual she made a phone call to the Area Supervisor. The Area Supervisor then spoke to Mr Araromi and then spoke again to the dismissed member of staff, and terminated the conversation without reverting back to Mr Araromi. He is of the view that that was also undermining his authority. The Supervisor should not have put the phone down without reverting back to him, because otherwise it might have appeared to the dismissed employee that they were taking her side rather than respecting his authority. In this particular instance we think that the Industrial Tribunal must have applied their minds to this point, because they record in some detail the circumstances in which the telephone call comes to be made.

    The third point relates to a question as to how the incident which took place, to which I will now refer, should be viewed. That incident concerns a time when a superior to Mr Araromi came to his branch after the person concerned had been dismissed and made an enquiry as to whether a new member of staff was black or white. He rightly says that it should have been no concern of hers whether any such employee was black or white and the Tribunal were asked to consider that evidence with great care, which we believe they did. But it seems to us, having discussed the matter with Mr Araromi this morning, that the possible implication that would arise from such conversation would be less that the employee concerned herself was racial, but more, that she was, no doubt wrongly, suggesting that the applicant himself was racially motivated when recruiting members of staff to work at his branch. But whether that is right or wrong, it does seem to us that they gave very careful consideration to the incident to which we have just referred. That was one of the two principal matters which they had regard to in arriving at their conclusion that they could not infer that there was a racial motivation in the way in which his employment was dealt with.

    Accordingly, we are not persuaded that there is any arguable point of law raised by this appeal. It is very unfortunate that the applicant has lost his job in the circumstances outlined by the decision, and we for our part, would wish to record the fact that, so far as we can tell, he is a man who has considerable talent and ability and has presented his argument to us with considerable clarity. We would hope that the termination of his employment in the circumstances outlined in the Industrial Tribunal decision, will not impede or affect his future career and on that basis we wish him well.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/837_96_2711.html