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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Daie v British Gas Plc [1993] UKEAT 296_91_2607 (26 July 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/296_91_2607.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 296_91_2607 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL QC
MR K M HACK JP
MRS P TURNER OBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant DR S DAIE
(Appellant in Person)
JUDGE J HULL QC: This is Dr Daie's appeal from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at London (South) on 5th and 6th February 1991. That Tribunal heard his complaint that he had been discriminated against on racial grounds. Dr Daie is of Iranian origin.
The Tribunal heard that Dr Daie had applied for employment to the Respondents, British Gas plc. He is a distinguished man; he has degrees in science, and is also an engineer. The substance of his complaint was that he had not been short-listed and for that the main responsibility appears to have attached to Dr Gibbons and Dr Keene, two senior persons employed by British Gas.
The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Berkley, a Senior Personnel Officer who was responsible for the British Gas equal opportunities policy, Dr Gibbons, the Deputy Head of Research and Dr Keene, the Assistant Divisional Manager. Both the latter, distinguished scientists as well as Managers, gave evidence about the policy of British Gas. They explained to the Tribunal that there was an Equal Opportunities Policy and that there was a determination to avoid any discrimination on grounds of race or gender. They gave examples of people in their employment, skilled and distinguished people indeed of various races. With regard to the failure to short-list Dr Daie, they gave a number of reasons. Among other things they noted that the application did not show the quality of Dr Daie's first degree, on which apparently these employers put particular emphasis; they were inclined to infer from that that perhaps it was not a very good first degree. They were unable to trace and substantiate Dr Daie's publications. They also attached great significance to the fact that there appeared to be a period of between five and six years in the recent past about which no details were given. That was a matter of great importance in this field. It is quite impossible for a person to be away for a substantial period like that from the practice of his profession as a scientist or chemical engineer without getting out of touch. Mr Berkley, Dr Gibbons, and Dr Keene, said that those were the reasons why they had not short-listed Dr Daie.
The Industrial Tribunal has to look very carefully at employers' evidence in cases where it is alleged there has been discrimination. In the nature of things the facts, the vital documents, will be in the knowledge and care of the employers not of the applicant, who is a stranger to these matters. Therefore industrial tribunals are anxious to listen with considerable care to the evidence of the employers and, if they feel that there is a suspicion, to investigate it fully. They certainly do not accept readily what is said to them if there is anything which arouses reasonable suspicion that an applicant from a racial minority has not been treated fairly. Having done all that this Tribunal reached the conclusion, unanimously and with great force and in detail, that there had been no racial discrimination against Dr Daie. They accepted the reasons which were given by the scientists and the Personnel Officer, they looked at the documents, they were satisfied that there was no racial discrimination and therefore they were obliged to dismiss Dr Daie's application to them. It was a question of fact for the Tribunal.
We can only hear appeals on questions of law and that is our only jurisdiction; if we go outside that we are defying the statute which is responsible for our existence and our decision is not a lawful one. So today this case is set down under our Practice Direction for a preliminary hearing to see whether a point of law can be discovered on which this case can proceed.
Dr Daie has appeared in person. He says that it was made clear to the Tribunal that the employers had not read his curriculum vitae. He complains that a key witness was absent, a Mr King (Mr King was apparently in the Personnel Department). It is not clear to us what Mr King might have said that would have assisted Dr Daie's case but there was a person from the Department there, Mr Berkley whom we have spoken of, and it was explained to the Tribunal that Mr King, who was evidently in a somewhat subordinate position, was absent because he had had an accident of some sort. Dr Daie told the Tribunal, so he tells us, that in those circumstances it was pointless for the proceedings to continue. But he did not apply for an adjournment, he did not apply for a witness summons to Mr King, nor did he tell the Tribunal any more than he has told us, what Mr King could have said which would have furthered the matter. He says the decision by the Industrial Tribunal was unsafe and unsound and he says that Mr King's importance was that applications had to be addressed to him; and then he produced to us a little bundle of documents which he says comprise his case. He includes here an extract from his CV; on that extract there is a paragraph headed "References" and in that Dr Daie has written:
"References will be furnished upon request."
and somebody, for all we know Mr King, or Mr Berkley or one of the other people, or perhaps somebody who was never even referred to, has put a circle around that; and to that Dr Daie attaches great importance as showing there was discrimination against him. It does seem to us that that is a quite impossible inference to draw. As we have said, the scientific managers had given evidence that this curriculum vitae was, in some respects, insufficient and the most natural thing in the world for anybody reading it would be to say, "well if we go any further at all with this applicant we shall have to take up his references, to see what can be said about these matters as to which the CV is inadequate." He also has in this little bundle an internal memorandum from Dr Keene, one of the witnesses who did give evidence, to this Mr King. This, so far from suggesting that Mr King is the person who was responsible for the decision, is a list of Dr Keene's reasons for not including Dr Daie in the interview list. He refers to his experience, the unaccounted period of six years, his qualifications and a question about his work permit. It is quite clear that this decision was reached by Dr Keene and his colleagues, not by Mr King who was told about it by Dr Keene.
Then Dr Daie attaches further documents to his little bundle. He complains that there is a conspiracy against him. He says that the people who have taken part in this conspiracy are first of all, in "Group I", his landlord; his landlord's lawyer; his landlord's agents; and a lobby of his landlords concerned with the question whether Dr Daie's residential licence, as it has been called, is in fact a secure tenancy. He says the local Council are taking an interest in that. There is a large group of people there apparently, who are conspiring against him.
Group II he says is led by a person, whose name I will not read out here, concerned with a research organisation in Australia which has usurped Dr Daie's intellectual property and behaved in various intolerable ways and is seeking to serve its own ends by bringing pressure to bear on him to leave the United Kingdom for Australia, so that he can be at their mercy entirely. He goes as far as to say that this group, this second group, were hellbent on blackmailing him at the instigation of the man, whose name I have not read out.
It is an unhappy story and I am afraid having read what we have read and heard what we have heard we shall not leave Dr Daie satisfied with the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.
We are all of the very firm view that this Industrial Tribunal proceeded in an entirely regular way, very carefully, to consider the evidence in the case and did reach its decision on points of fact after taking great care. We think that it was entirely open to the Tribunal to proceed as they did and we cannot at the moment see any way in which they could have proceeded otherwise. Dr Daie did not ask the Tribunal to adjourn; did not challenge the fact that Mr King was absent through injury; and, one infers from what we have heard, did not show the Tribunal any reason why Mr King should be regarded as a vital witness in the case. The Industrial Tribunal appears to us to have heard the witnesses who were the vital witnesses in the case, and to have arrived patiently, and after considerable trouble, at findings of fact which in our view are entirely unassailable. We cannot find any point of law here. We do not think that Dr Daie is entitled to appeal to this Tribunal or that this Tribunal is entitled to entertain his appeal, and therefore since no point of law is disclosed we are obliged to dismiss this appeal and say that it must go no further, and that is the order which we make in the case.
