Appeal No.	EAT/1190/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 23 July 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MRS J M MATTHIAS
MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MRS JUNE BRADFORD	APPELLANT

ABBEY NATIONAL PLC	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	NEITHER PRESENT 
NOR REPRESENTED

	JUDGE LEVY:	Mrs June Bradford made a complaint to an Industrial Tribunal that she had been unfairly dismissed.  Her complaint was received by the Tribunal on 18/19 September 1997.  After an appearance had been entered by the Respondent, Abbey National Plc, there was a hearing for some days before an Employment Tribunal at Newcastle-upon-Tyne.  The decision was promulgated to the parties on 30 July 1998.  The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that her complaint of unfair dismissal failed and that she had been properly dismissed.  From that appeal the Appellant appealed by a notice dated 30 August 1998.  

1	Today is the preliminary hearing ex-parte of her appeal.  She has not attended this day.  We have however, carefully considered the grounds in her Notice of Appeal and have read her affidavit sworn on 4 November 1998 and the Chairman’s comments on it and subsequent correspondence.  

2	The background facts which led to the dismissal of the Appellant by the Respondent is that there had been an unauthorised credit search made within the department of the Respondent in which the Appellant worked.  The Respondent felt the finger pointed to the Appellant for taking some part in that unauthorised search.  The decision of the Employment Tribunal showed that the Tribunal looked carefully into the circumstances in which the investigation took place and the disciplinary proceedings and found that the employer came to a reasonable decision in reaching its decision to dismiss.

3	Having looked at the circumstances very carefully, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was fairly dismissed and that her claim failed.  In these circumstances, we would only be entitled to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision if we thought the Tribunal had erred in some way.  Having carefully looked at the findings, we do not find any such error.  

4	A number of points are made by the Appellant in her Notice of Appeal which run to some 23 points over 3 pages.  All of them appear to simply be asking for a rehearing of her case before an Employment Tribunal.  It is apparent to us she has had a long and fair hearing before the Tribunal from whose Decision she appealed.  We have considered carefully but reject the allegations of bias made against the Chairman because we think that they are not well founded.  

5	In the circumstances, we do not think that there is any point of law to go forward to a full hearing.  Accordingly we dismiss this appeal at this stage.