[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Cox v Tracel Unicom Ltd [1994] UKEAT 333_94_2706 (27 June 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/333_94_2706.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 333_94_2706

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

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 333_94_2706

Appeal No. EAT/333/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 27th June 1994

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MS S R CORBY

MR A D SCOTT

---

MR G COX          APPELLANT

TRACEL UNICOM LIMITED          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR A JAMES

(Representative)

Citizens' Advice Bureau

72/74 Newmarket Road

Cambridge

CB5 8DZ


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Mr G M Cox was dismissed from his employment with Tracel Unicom Limited on the 25th January 1993.

There were hearings at the Bury St Edmunds' Industrial Tribunal on the 2nd September 1993 and for a discussion on the 15th October 1993. On the 18th March 1994 the Tribunal's decision was sent to the parties. That decision was unanimous. The Tribunal held that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed but by his conduct he contributed 100% to such dismissal and was not therefore entitled to compensation. The reason for his dismissal was persistent bad time keeping but the "straw which broke the camel's back" had occurred when Mr Cox was under great pressure.

In a spirited argument, on this preliminary hearing this morning, Mr James has submitted to us that on the authorities if there has been an error by the employer it cannot be 100% fault by the employee. But every case very much turns on its own facts. Although there was a error on the employer's part, in that following one disciplinary hearing there was not a written warning, as Mr James himself said, when speaking of his client, "he finds it difficult to understand anyone else's point of view". In those circumstances, we think that what the Tribunal below did was something they were entitled to do on the evidence which they heard. Their reasoning is unimpugnable in this Tribunal.

In these circumstances this is an appeal doomed to failure and we have no alternative other than to dismiss it at this stage.