[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 Rank Xerox (UK) Ltd [1996] UKEAT 946_96_1112 (11 December 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/946_96_1112.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 946_96_1112

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR HOLMES (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Mr R. Harvey wishes to appeal from a Decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Sheffield on 16 May 1996 and 12 June 1996. The Decision was sent to the parties on 5 July 1996. Mr Harvey had complained of unfair dismissal. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that he had not been unfairly dismissed and accordingly the Tribunal dismissed his application.

The background to Mr Harvey's complaint was that in the employ of the large Respondent he had the use of a Caravelle as a company car. He wished for this car to be replaced by the Company by a similar model. For reasons which are not material to set out in this appeal, the company was not willing to give him the replacement he wanted. His request had been considered by employees of the Company at a meeting with him and the crucial points are made in paragraph 6 of the Extended Reasons of the Industrial Tribunal.

Mr Horne comes into the picture as the Human Resources Manager. The Extended Reasons read thus:

"6. ... Mr Horne very sensibly in our view arranged to have a meeting between himself, the applicant and Mr Johnson to try and bring some sense into the arrangements for the new vehicle which had reached a state of impasse. They had an informal meeting on 13 September 1995. We find as a fact that at that meeting it was made absolutely clear to the applicant that he would not be having a Caravelle and he was told that in the hypothetical situation of him actually ordering a Caravelle from the respondent's transport department it would amount to gross misconduct and could lead to his dismissal. We find that after that meeting the applicant realised that by ordering such a vehicle he was putting his job in jeopardy. The outcome of the meeting on the 13th was confirmed to the applicant in a letter dated 20 September but, understandably, the hypothetical situation was not mentioned."

Mr Holmes, who has appeared for Mr Harvey this morning, and we are very grateful to him for his submissions, says the strongest point on which this case could go forward is that the findings of fact made in that paragraph were contrary to the evidence and indeed, that the letter to which he has drawn our attention, does not state that Mr Harvey was running the risk of putting his job in jeopardy if he ordered the vehicle.

We take on board what he said but it is an Industrial Tribunal's job to find facts after hearing and considering evidence adduced to them. They heard all the material evidence in this case from witnesses; they have come to conclusions of fact from that evidence and we cannot accept that there was no evidence to justify their findings.

We find nothing in the points that Mr Holmes has put forward on behalf of Mr Harvey to make us believe that this appeal has any prospect of success and therefore it is our unanimous decision that it has to be dismissed at this stage.