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 £5, 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 >> Williams v. HM Prison Service [2002] UKEAT 1236_00_0702 (7 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1236_00_0702.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1236_00_0702, [2002] UKEAT 1236__702 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE A WILKIE QC
MS S R CORBY
DR D GRIEVES CBE
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR DEEN TIYAMIYU Representative |
For the Respondent | MR D TATTON-BROWN (of Counsel) Instructed by: The Treasury Solicitor Queen Anne's Chambers 28 Broadway London SW1H 9JS |
HIS HONOUR JUDGE A WILKIE QC
Mr Williams made no complaint that this initial rejection was racially discriminatory in itself, though it was part of the background which the Tribunal was presented with, and which it correctly, in our view, recorded in its Decision.
"(i) the assessment of Mr Williams was carried out according to the internal guidelines set out and that overall score sheets show no evidence that he was discriminated against
(ii) the JSAC system complies with the CRE Code of Practice
(iii) the proportion of those from ethnic minorities who took and passed JSAC was the same proportion as those of white candidates."
" set out in Order 8100 paragraph 4 and paragraph 5.4.6."
The Tribunal then goes on to set out paragraph 5.4.6:
"Candidates who fail to meet the standard at JSAC are unlikely to do so without further life experience or coaching/training in interpersonal skills. Accordingly, candidates must be advised not to apply again for at least 12 months."
"Although the Tribunal heard evidence as to the possible ambiguity of paragraph 5.4.6 our finding is that on any interpretation Mr Williams would have been unable to reapply as early as September 1999."
" considered the evidence firstly, as to whether Mr Williams was treated less favourably than other employees and secondly if the treatment was less favourable was it on the grounds of his race."
They indicate that they had also taken account of the dicta to the effect that they should not make separate decisions on each allegation but should look at the overall picture.
" come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that in JSAC process or the Highpoint recruitment was Mr Williams treated any differently from his white colleagues. "
They go on to say that it is therefore not possible to make any findings that any of the treatment was discriminatory, on the grounds of his race. They go on to say that:
"In addition there is no evidence that the rejection of Mr Williams Highpoint application was on account of his having started Tribunal proceedings in respect of the JSAC complaint."
"It follows that we have to consider on a benevolent approach to the extent of reasons whether (i) the employment tribunal asked themselves the wrong question, and further or alternatively, (ii) whether the extended reasons make it sufficiently clear that the employment tribunal posed themselves and answered, the correct statutory question, and in doing so give a sufficient account of their findings of fact and reasoning to enable us to identify why the respondent employer won and the applicant lost.
…….
50 Thus we have to consider whether the employment tribunal posed and answered the statutory question posed by section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and thus, for example, we have to consider: whether the employment tribunal decided that there was less favourable treatment, and what the approach and conclusion of the employment tribunal was on the issue of causation."