![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Campbell v. Pink Roccade (Computeraid) Ltd [2002] UKEAT 1241_01_3110 (31 October 2002) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1241_01_3110.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1241_1_3110, [2002] UKEAT 1241_01_3110 |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MR R THOMSON
MISS S M WILSON CBE
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR M S PANESAR (of Counsel) Instructed by: Commission for Racial Equality (Litigation Dept) Elliot House 10-12 Allington Street London SW1E 5EH |
For the Respondent | MISS L SEYMOUR (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Stevens & Bolton Solicitors The Billings Walnut Tree Close Guildford Surrey GU1 4YD |
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
"48 …..…a white engineer, similarly placed, would have been treated no differently. Neither do we find any basis of complaint arising out of the respondent's decision to withdraw the applicant from site instead of providing on the job support and training. Such a course would not have been practicable in the circumstances.
49 Further, we do not find that the case of Miss Spice satisfies the requirements of a proper comparator within the meaning of section 3(4) of the Act. The circumstances of her case were materially different from those of the applicant. No meaningful comparison can be drawn between them."
"It may be that the Tribunal felt that they could deal with the case very briefly because they might have thought they were dealing with a case where time had not been extended. Treating that as a free standing treatment of the second sub division of the second limb, it is, as Mr Gumbiti-Zimuto argues, at least arguably insufficient. To say such a course would not have been practicable in the circumstances without explaining why is at least terse. To say that no meaningful comparison can be drawn between them without explaining why, again, can be said to be too brief a description in the situation that the parties are entitled to know why they lost and why they won. It may well be that to those who heard the evidence it was dazzlingly obvious that no meaningful comparison could be drawn and that the course of on the job training would not have been practicable in the circumstances as they applied to Mr Campbell. If that had been spelled out nothing arguable would have arisen but it was not spelled out and, on balance, we find it arguable that the matter was too tersely dealt with"
"it must be borne in mind that Extended Reasons of an Employment Tribunal are directed to parties who know in detail the arguments and issues in the case. The Tribunal's Reasons do not need to be spelt out in the detail required, were they to be directed towards a stranger to this dispute."
17…….." the tasks involved were of a more technically challenging kind than the bulk of those performed by him previously, and required a high level of unsupervised and autonomous working.
18. The Applicant duly attended, spent a good deal of time with Mr Hughes in the course of the day, and had a relatively short discussion with Mr Jones about the job's requirements, lasting probably not more than 30 minutes or so.
19. Following a discussion with Mr Hughes, Mr Jones sent an e-mail to Mr Vierk advising the applicant's line manager that 'a number of general straightforward tasks are proving to be quite difficult for [the applicant] to understand'. There were also anticipated changes in the on-site personnel at Swindon which would make 'the on-site position far more demanding'. Mr Jones stated, in conclusion:
"…..I do not feel that Leighton [the applicant] possesses the required experience nor the basic fundamental skills to run the site effectively unsupervised."
20. Mr Vierk took the decision to withdraw the applicant from the site after the first day of his trial period. The applicant was not shown a copy of Mr Jones' e-mail at that time, but was provided with a generalised account of Mr Jones' concerns."
He was obviously upset, and one can well understand why. According to the Tribunal:
"…. he did not consider the decision was in any way affected by his race".
"The treatment of Jacqui Spice was not originally part of the Applicant's grievance and was only raised by him at the appeal stage. She was not in a comparable position to the Applicant. It is not therefore open to the Applicant to use her as a comparator for the purpose of any complaint of discrimination. She was declared redundant in her position within the Bristol office with effect from 1 October 2000. The Respondent company in accordance with legal requirements looked for alternative positions for her within its organisation. A place was found for her working on site at the Audit Commission where the Applicant also worked. She was asked to perform work of an administrative rather than technical nature. After a period of time the Audit Commission concluded that Ms Spice's skills were not equal to the tasks which she had to perform at the site. Mr Spice's manager considered the possibility of retraining but the Audit Commission would not accept that this would solve the shortcomings in Ms Spice's skills and she was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 21 December 2000."
Now, if you look at the body of this Decision, it is true, as we have said, that the Decision could have been more specific in certain findings, but we think it right to say that the primary issue, namely that he was denied the opportunity to obtain training and development, was really dealt with at considerable length.
"48. ………However, we do not find that the decision to withdraw the applicant from site, unfortunate though it was, was affected, consciously or unconsciously, by race. A white engineer, similarly placed, would have been treated no differently. Neither do we find any basis of complaint arising out of the respondent's decision to withdraw the applicant from site instead of providing on the job support and training. Such a course would not have been practicable in the circumstances.
49. Further, we do not find that the case of Miss Spice satisfies the requirements of a proper comparator within the meaning of section 3(4) of the Act. The circumstances of her case were materially different from those of the applicant. No meaningful comparison can be drawn between them."
"46 ….….. out of time and there was no basis being advanced to justify the exercise of the tribunal's discretion to consider the complaint out of time on 'just and equitable' grounds.
47 The applicant's representative in her submissions points to the discovery of the contents of Mr Jones' e-mail as the event that crystallised the applicant's complaint. The tribunal does not accept that this is so. The facts material to the second limb of complaint were known to the applicant some 18 months prior to the commencement of proceedings. Although the respondent's treatment of Miss Spice is a matter which may have come to the applicant's attention within the relevant three month period, we do not find that the applicant's perception that he had been treated unfairly on grounds of race stemmed from that event. We note, as is pointed out in the respondent's submissions, that Miss Spice's case was only referred to by the applicant in the course of the grievance appeal."
(a) that the Tribunal did adequately deal with the issue raised before them and found, as it was entitled to, that this was out of time, and that it was not just and equitable to permit the case to go forward;
(b) secondly, we accept that in reaching that determination, they did deal with arguments not only put to them on the Applicant's behalf at that stage but those mentioned in Miss Seymour's submissions.