[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bryan v British Telecommunications Plc [1999] UKEAT 1065_98_0607 (6 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1065_98_0607.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1065_98_0607, [1999] UKEAT 1065_98_607

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MRS M BRYAN (Mother/Representative)
For the Respondents	MR D BASU (of Counsel) Instructed by: Miss C E Moore Solicitor Group Legal Services British Telecommunications Plc BT Centre 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by Mr Bryan from a decision of the Registrar who has refused to extend time. Mr Bryan's Notice of Appeal was received here 426 days outside the 42 day time limit for appealing. It is a Notice of Appeal which relates to a Employment Tribunal decision which was promulgated on 21^st May 1997.

1. Mr Bryan had been employed by British Telecom for about 11 years before he was dismissed on 27^th August 1996 for alleged gross misconduct.
2. Mr Bryan feels strongly that the Employment Tribunal were wrong in their assessment of the credibility of himself in relation to the events described in their decision. He was accused of having acted improperly, and possibly dishonestly, and he says that that is simply a mis-description of his characteristics, that he is an open and honest man who comes from a background where honesty and straightforwardness is valued. He has been so shattered by the decision which has been given by the Employment Tribunal that he has not been able to get himself into a position where he could file a Notice of Appeal within the time limit. He has been to a number of solicitors, three of who have given him negative advice as to his prospects of overturning the decision and rectifying the injustice, as he sees it.
3. This is not a case, as it seems to me, where time can be extended, because I have not been provided with any excuse which provides any reasonable explanation for the delay in this case. But that said, I have considerable sympathy with Mr Bryan's position. He feels that he has been let down by his trade union over their representation of him before the Employment Tribunal. In fact, he had a Barrister who appeared for him at Stratford on 28^th April. So shocked was he by this decision and so upset by what had happened that he has provided the Employment Appeal Tribunal with testimonials which make it plain, including one from his mother, that he is a man who values highly honesty and integrity and that he is known to those who know him well as a man who is trustworthy. His 84 year old mother has travelled down to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in order to tell the Court how unfair and unjust the tribunal's assessment of his credibility and characteristics was.
4. I pointed out to both Mr Bryan and his mother that the powers of the Employment Appeal Tribunal are limited to correcting errors of law and that even if the appeal had been allowed to go ahead it is unlikely that the Employment Appeal Tribunal would have been able to re-evaluate the facts in a way which would give Mr Bryan and his mother the satisfaction that they seeking.
5. This is one of those cases of which there are, regrettably, many, where on a misconduct case the process of losing the tribunal does not only come as a disappointment but damages the individual so that sometimes they are unable to go back into employment again.
6. Employment Tribunals in misconduct cases are asking the question whether the employers reasonably believed that the applicant did or did not do the acts complained of, rather than asking the question whether in their judgment the person concerned did or did not do the acts complained of. It is a matter of some concern to the President that on occasion their decisions slip from one to the other, so that an individual who gives evidence but does not call all the evidence which might have been available to him to deal with the misconduct, finds that the tribunal have either said expressly or implicitly that he has been actually guilty of the misconduct alleged, rather than confining themselves to the technical question as to whether the employers reasonably believed that he had committed the misconduct on the basis of the information available to them at the time when the decision to dismiss was taken.
7. Accordingly, this is one of those cases where Mr Bryan believes that he has been damaged by the tribunal process itself, quite apart from the affront which he felt on being dismissed by his employers after 11 years of faithful service.
8. I add that as an aside, because it seems to me that there has got to come a time when Mr Bryan can move on from the termination of his employment with British Telecom and put this matter behind him, rather than still wishing to contest it.
9. The Employment Appeal Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it is out of time and time cannot be extended. That should now be the end of the matter. For their part, British Telecom will wish to reflect when it comes to a reference that there is a lot of good that can be said about Mr Bryan's past service with them, even though in all honesty they will be required to give a fair description of the circumstances in which he came to part company with them. The fact that they may reasonably have believed that he was guilty of this misconduct, does not of course mean and should not be taken to mean that he is guilty of what he was alleged to have done, rather that the dismissal was fair in all circumstances.
10. For the reasons I have tried to give, I would dismiss this appeal, although I recognise that this will be the end of the road for Mr Bryan seeking to clear his name through the legal process.