 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> John Crilley & Son & Anor v Grant [1994] UKEAT 193_93_2009 (20 September 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/193_93_2009.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 193_93_2009 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FRENCH
DR P D WICKENS OBE
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
(2) G FISKEN
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR EASON RAJAH
(OF COUNSEL)
Lloyd Cooper
Solicitors
7a Grafton Street
London W1X 3LA
For the Respondent MR R WILSON
(OF COUNSEL)
Messrs Makanda
Paul Anthony House
724 Holloway Road
London N19 3JD
MR JUSTICE FRENCH: We have considered very carefully all the papers in this case and we have also considered very carefully the able arguments of Counsel on both sides. In the end the key question is whether the manner in which the Respondent was dismissed was a manner in which the Appellant would have dismissed a white employee. Whether Amey was or was not a person for whose actions the Appellant was vicariously responsible is, in our judgment, of little relevance. The manner in which the Respondent was dismissed was on any view open to criticism. No reasons were given and the Respondent was addressed as "boy". The Tribunal were bound to ask themselves, and did ask themselves, whether the Appellant would have dismissed a white employee in that manner. They concluded that the answer was "No". There was material on which they could so conclude. It was conceded on behalf of the Appellant that the dismissal was unfair. The remaining question was - Was that unfairness the result of racial discrimination? These were matters properly addressed by the Industrial Tribunal. We find no reason to conclude that their decision was wrong.
Accordingly this appeal must be dismissed.