Appeal No. EAT/1060/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 November 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MR D CHADWICK
MRS T A MARSLAND

MR D C ROWLANDS	APPELLANT

JOHNSON CLEANERS UK LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR M HARAN
(Solicitor)
Mr J Kay
Ashton in Makerfield C A B
Old Town Hall
Bryn Street
Ashton in Makerfield WN4 9AY	
For the Respondents	MR J CROSFILL
(of Counsel)
Ms Elaine Heslop  (ref: eh/thomas/368)
Solicitor
North Islington Law Centre
161 Hornsey Road
London N7 6DU	

	JUDGE D PUGSLEY:	This is a case that comes before us arising out of a decision of a Tribunal sitting at Liverpool that found the Applicant was fairly dismissed.   It is unnecessary for us to go into the facts to any great degree save and except that this is a case in which the Applicant was employed by the Respondent and had been for many years as a field trainer.   The Respondents carried on a dry cleaning business in various places including a branch at Blackburn.

	In September of 1997 the Applicant started a training programme with three female employees.   Those three employees in November made a complaint against the Applicant in respect of his behaviour during the training course.   A formal investigation was carried out by a Ms Holdsworth of the Keith Davis Consultancy in order for it to be as independent as possible.   She interviewed the three complainants in December.   She interviewed the Applicant, going through the allegations made by the complainants giving the Applicant an opportunity to respond.   The Applicant denied sexually harassing the women but said he had a tactile manner and did not deny touching the women on some occasions.   He said it was not done in any sexual way.   

	A report was prepared and that report came before Mr Nicol who carried out a disciplinary hearing.   At the hearing Ms Holdsworth presented her report, the Applicant was given opportunity to challenge it and put his version of the facts and to make a concluding statement.

	In coming to his decision to dismiss Mr Nicol considered a number of facts: the statement of the three female employees was similar and consistent, where there was a dispute as to the facts the three female employees were able to corroborate each other.    The Applicant admitted touching the complainants - the Applicant said he did not believe the complainants were lying but that it was a matter of interpretation.   The Applicant seemed to show no insight into the seriousness of the allegation made against him.   Mr Nicol concluded that the evidence of the three complainants was true and the Applicant was guilty of a serious case of sexual harassment.   He felt that the only option was to dismiss.  

	That was subject to an appeal and that appeal was dismissed.   In a long and careful decision the Tribunal correctly identified the areas and issues of law that arise.   A Notice of Appeal was then entered against that, pointing out that the complainants had not been called to give evidence and making various issues on what it may, with great respect, be said to be issues of fact rather than law.   That appeal was not in time and by decision of the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal the Application to extend the time to enter a Notice of Appeal was refused. 

	Thereafter the Chairman was asked to review the case, which he did.   By a decision promulgated on 7 May the Chairman set out his reasons for refusing the review on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success.   During the course of that the Chairman pointed out that he considered the Application for Review in the light of three principles, that in the public interest there should be finality in litigation, that the interests of justice apply to both sides, that in all cases there is a right of appeal as well as a right to apply for review.   He considered that all the matters that had been put in the letter requesting review were matters that had been raised during the hearing and considered by the Tribunal.   In the light of that he refused the review.

	Before us we have had the benefit of hearing the submissions from Mr Haran which are the more helpful because they are the more realistic.   The reality is that this is an appeal for a review.   In our view there was no ground for saying that in any way the decision to which the Chairman came in refusing the review is one that discloses any error of law.   In these circumstances we must dismiss the Appeal against Review.