Appeal No.	EAT/1259/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 12 December 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE QC
SIR GAVIN LAIRD CBE
MRS R A VICKERS

MR P OSBORNE	APPELLANT

LONDON GENERAL TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT	

	JUDGE HARGROVE QC:     On 24th July the Industrial Tribunal held that the appellant’s dismissal was fair. The ground of dismissal was gross misconduct in that he was guilty of continued absence and failed to attend meetings. Between 23rd September 1995 and 29th December 1995, he failed to complete his duty on four days; was absent on 45 days and worked only 16 days. By the February 1995 the appellant was on a final written warning. He was absent from 21st March to 2nd July with knee problems. He was had further periods of absence in July, August, September, October and November, mainly but not exclusively of a sickness. He regarded lost keys, a lost diary and an appointment with the bank as excuses. He was asked attend an interview on 29th November, he did not do so. He was written off the books. He sought an interview on 8th December and at his request and upon his assurance as to future attendance, he was given his job back. Yet on 11th December he was absent again. He was asked to attend an interview on 3rd January. He was told that if he was unable to do so for health reasons his GP should submit a letter. On 29th December he telephoned to say that he could not attend because of his knee. He was offered an alternative date and he refused. He was told that if he did not attend he would be written off the books. 

	It was held that the combination of his work record with his failure to attend interviews to discuss his non-attendance, constituted a situation where dismissal was a reasonable response.

	The appeal is based upon complaint that the respondents failed to investigate the medical condition of the appellant, and failed to hold disciplinary hearings. Secondly, it is said that the respondents had introduced medical evidence that the appellant said was genuine and that it was wrong for the Industrial Tribunal to ignore such evidence. Finally, it was said that there was an error in the Industrial Tribunal decision in that they held that the respondents had said that they had offered an alternative date and that the appellant had refused it. Whereas at trial the respondent said they could not remember what the appellant had said.

	We have considered carefully all these matters. None of them raise an arguable point of law and this appeal is dismissed.