Appeal No.	 EAT/915/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 28 January 1997

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR R H PHIPPS
MR A D TUFFIN CBE

MR J GILL	APPELLANT

BOROUGH OF REIGATE & BANSTEAD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR T A CEDENIO
(Consultant)
Employment Advice & Tribunal Service
32 Castle Road
Epsom
Surrey
KT18 7NZ	

	JUDGE PETER CLARK:	In this case the Applicant before the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (South) over six days, followed by a further day in Chambers, appeals against that Tribunal’s decision to dismiss his complaint of unfair dismissal against his former employer, the Borough of Reigate and Banstead.  Extended Reasons for that decision are dated 13 June 1996.

	For the purposes of this judgment it is sufficient to say that the Applicant was employed by the Respondent from 1979 until his dismissal on 16 March 1995.  He held a responsible post as Client Manager (Recreation and Leisure) earning, at termination of the employment, in excess of £20,000 a year.  The Respondent concluded that he had abused his position as a Council employee with a view to financial gain by seeking to put himself in a position whereby he could wrongly take advantage of the right to buy Council accommodation.

	The matter was properly investigated, so the Industrial Tribunal found; he was subject to a fair disciplinary procedure which included a full appeal.  The Industrial Tribunal correctly directed itself in accordance with the Burchell principles, as explained in Boys & Girls Welfare Society v McDonald [1996] IRLR 129, and finally concluded that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.  This was a classic industrial jury decision with which we cannot interfere unless it is shown that, at this preliminary hearing, the Applicant has raised an arguable point of law.

	Mr Cedenio, who appeared below and now appears before us today, has applied for a postponement of this appeal hearing on the grounds that on 14 January 1997 he applied to the Industrial Tribunal for a review of its decision on the basis that new evidence had been received by the Applicant through the post anonymously shortly before Christmas 1996.

	We have considered the grounds of that written application.  Its determination is a matter for the Industrial Tribunal.  For our part we are quite satisfied that we should deal with the present appeal against the existing Industrial Tribunal decision.  It is not our function to retry the factual issues.

	We asked Mr Cedenio to develop his grounds of appeal.  He politely declined to do so on the basis that he felt unable to do that without a determination by the Industrial Tribunal of his application for a review.

	Accordingly we have considered the grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal, there being no skeleton argument.  They are based on arguments of perversity which, in our judgment, are wholly without merit.  

	In these circumstances this appeal will be dismissed.