Appeal No.	EAT/1057/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 5 December 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE QC
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
MR T C THOMAS CBE

MR V WILLIAMS	APPELLANT

ST JOHN THE BAPTIST CHURCH	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON	

	JUDGE HARGROVE QC:     The appellant applied for the post of fund-raiser and development worker at the respondent Church. The job was to last for six months. The appellant was short-listed as one of four candidates. One was eliminated at the outset as being poor and the other three were for consideration by a panel. They assessed each candidate and reached the conclusion that the best candidate was a white woman who was appointed. The appellant came third. 

	He alleged that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of race.

	This appeal is based first of all upon the ground that he did not have a fair trial and there were frequent disruptions in the course of his evidence by the Chairman. 

	We see the Chairman’s letter. We have read with great care a manuscript document which is placed before us today which set out the various matters which were being urged in submission by the appellant. What is interesting is that those matters are almost exactly mirrored in:

(a)	the findings of the tribunal; and
(b)	in the Chairman’s letter in reply.

	The Chairman points out, and it is right to say, that the affidavit from the appellant is highly unsatisfactory. It must be realised if allegations of this seriousness are to be made, they must be supported by an affidavit with gives full particulars. The affidavit gives none or none of relevance. 

	The other matters raised are these. That the tribunal erred in law in not reviewing or considering the recruitment process of the Church and whether it was fair. The tribunal found as a fact that essential skills the Church expected of the candidate and set them out, and that in fact the failure of the tribunal was that having found that the appellant had those skills and had better skills on paper than the candidate who was appointed, failed to go on to draw the conclusion that therefore there had been racial discrimination. 

	The core of the decision by the tribunal can be found in paragraph 12. It begins:

“The Applicant was probably the best candidate on paper. He presented an impressive written presentation. The Church can be criticised and we do criticise the Church for the failure to keep any notes of the assessments made in relation to the written and oral presentations of the candidates. ...”

The tribunal goes on in this way:

“... The Church’s witnesses were truthful witnesses. The assessments made by the panel members were genuine expressions of their views. The panel members did not consciously or unconsciously discriminate against the Applicant on racial grounds. On the evidence, it was not unreasonable for the panel to find that the Applicant did not have recent relevant experience. In their genuine opinion, Ms Hall the Candidate number 3 performed better at the interviews that the Applicant. ...”

That is criticised upon the basis that that was not a decision the tribunal ought to have come to. 

	That is a decision of fact. All the matters which are being urged before us are matters either of fact or they are matters of fact dressed up as points of law. The grounds of appeal do not present any matters which can be regarded as a reasonably arguable point of law. There is therefore no arguable case and this appeal is dismissed.