Appeal No. EAT/881/93
	I N T E R N A L 

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 14 February 1994

	Before

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

	MR P DAWSON OBE

	MR J C RAMSAY

MRS M HENRY	APPELLANT

COMMERCIAL CATERING GROUP	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING 

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	IN PERSON

	

	JUDGE LEVY QC:  On 22 July 1993 Mrs Henry applied to the London South Industrial Tribunal for a decision that she had been dismissed on the grounds of sex and race discrimination.  By a decision, which was sent to the parties on 19 August 1993, the Tribunal held that she had not been so dismissed.  In her Notice of Appeal, paragraph 6, Mrs Henry says:

		"The Tribunal has made a mistake in the application relating to the issues before it.

		The issue was not on race or sex.  Please see on attached sheet."

	I turn to the reasons which were set out by the Chairman in giving the full reasons for the dismissal of the claim.  Paragraph 1 reads:

		"This is claim which was expressed in the application to be one of wrongful dismissal.  It was assumed therefore that it was actually a claim of unfair dismissal and it was noticed that the Applicant did not have, at the effective date of termination, the two years' continuous employment necessary for bringing such a claim.  When this was pointed out to the Applicant, the West Indian Standing Conference, writing on her behalf, said that they wished to amend the application to say that the Applicant intended to claim on the grounds that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her sex and her race.  In particular they said that the discrimination was motivated by the Respondents' desire to prevent the Applicant attaining a protected period of service, that adequate opportunity had not been given for training and that she was constantly harassed by the Manager during a four week period in April/May 1992.  It was also alleged that the Respondents had not given the Applicant adequate time to improve, failed to follow its own rules and failed to follow its own rules regarding dismissal.  The claim was therefore treated, having regard to this explanation, as one where the Applicant claimed that her dismissal had been effected either because of her sex or because of her race."

	The full reasons of the Tribunal are then set out in many paragraphs in which we notice that the Tribunal noted that there were many ladies and many from the West Indies employed by the Respondents to this appeal.  The Tribunal went into the facts at some detail and at the end of the day, they accepted the evidence of others than the Appellant.  Those were findings which in this Tribunal cannot be challenged.  We understand Mrs Henry's disappointment at some of them, but at the end of the day what the Tribunal had to decide was whether the grounds to support the Applicant's claim that she had been discriminated against because of her race or her sex.  They did not so find and they dismissed her claim.  Her Notice of Appeal saying that it was not sex or race that she wished to appeal against, makes it clear beyond peradventure that she did not, alas, understand what the Tribunal below was looking at - namely her claim in respect of racial or sexual discrimination.  The complaint failed below and it must fail if it comes to this Court on a full hearing.

	In the circumstances we are dismissing this appeal at the preliminary stage.  This we are obliged to do where there is no case to go forward.