[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Wearing v Cornwall County Council [1998] UKEAT 1187_97_2104 (21 April 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1187_97_2104.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1187_97_2104

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC: This is an appeal by Mr George Waring against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting in Plymouth on 3, 4, 25 June and 12 August 1997. The facts are that Mr George Waring was employed by the Cornwall County Council from 12 December 1985 until 29 November 1997.

He was employed as a Home Tuition Co-ordinator for the Carrick area and it was common ground before the Industrial Tribunal that he was dismissed on 29 November 1996 on the grounds of gross misconduct.

The Council contended that he was fairly dismissed and it was that issue which came before the Industrial Tribunal on the dates which I mentioned.

Two grounds for dismissal were relied upon by the employer. On one of them the employer failed. On the other it succeeded. That was the inappropriate touching of a young girl then 14 years of age who was then being taught by the Applicant. The Applicant said to us that this was an isolated incident in an unblemished career and in those circumstances it was unfair and, indeed, wrong for him to have had the gravest penalty inflicted on him, namely dismissal for gross misconduct.

We have all read a full note from the Appellant of the matters on which he wished to address us and he addressed on these, with emphasis on the matters of mitigation which were put before the Tribunal and which they carefully considered.

At the end of the Extended Reasons the Industrial Tribunal said:

"27. In the light of these factors [which they carefully set out] it may be that some disciplinary sanction short of dismissal could be said to have been a reasonable response to the facts as found. But we remind ourselves that it is not for us to substitute our view for that of the employer in this matter. The test that we have to apply is whether the disciplinary sanction fell within the band of reasonable responses. In other words 'Was dismissal the response of a reasonable employer'? Having given the matter the most careful and anxious consideration, we have concluded that it is impossible for us to say that the respondent's decision to dismiss the applicant for this act of serious misconduct fell outside the band of reasonable responses."

We have explained to Mr Waring that appeals can only go forward for full hearing if findings of fact are made which are challenged on the grounds that there was no evidence to support such, or if matters of law arise that such a decision made was perverse.

We all have considerable sympathy for Mr Waring, who has said to us that as a result of his dismissal, he has lost his career. In our judgment, however, there is no chance whatsoever of this appeal succeeding because there is no proper point of law raised. The paragraph which we have read from the Extended Reasons shows a proper appreciation of relevant facts and of the law which the Industrial Tribunal has to apply. This decision is one, in our view, from which no other Tribunal is at all likely to dissent. The appeal raises no arguable point of law.

In those circumstances it is our duty to dismiss this appeal at this stage.