Appeal No.	 EAT/1328/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 March 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR D CHADWICK
MR W MORRIS

MR A CSOKA	APPELLANT

RICHARD WHITTAKER LIMITED	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	No appearance by or on behalf of the Appellant	

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC:	This is a preliminary appeal under the ex-parte hearing system by Mr A Csoka.  He appeals against the decision given by an Employment Tribunal sitting at Manchester on 13 July 1998.  His complaint to the Tribunal was that he had been unfairly dismissed.  His dismissal occurred because there had been a fight in the work place involving him and another.  He felt that after that fight, he should not have to have been required to go to work if the other man was there..  That was not something, which on investigation, the employer felt was appropriate.  His stance not being agreed by the employer, Mr Csoka decided to leave his employment and to commence proceedings, complaining of unfair constructive dismissal.  His application was received by an Industrial Tribunal on 14 May 1998.

	The Extended Reasons given after a hearing show conclusively why the Tribunal came to the decision it did.  What Mr Csoka seeks to do is to re-open the findings of fact made by the Tribunal.  Appeals are only allowed to go to a contested before this Tribunal where questions of law arise for decision on appeal.  Where there has been (as apparent to us) a full and fair hearing below, which investigated the matters in issue and came to the conclusion that an employer’s behaved in the way a reasonable employer would have behaved, there is nothing that can be done by way of appeal to upset that decision.  

	Mr Csoka has not appeared this morning and is a little upset because the representative on the ELAAS scheme is not available to assist him on the telephone.  The ELAAS scheme is a very great help to litigants, but it is obviously essential that the representatives should see the litigant in person, so that where necessary, documents can be looked at together and appropriate points of  appeal identified.  It is a matter for those who have been kind enough to organise the ELAAS scheme to consider whether they feel able to extend it to deal with Appellants by way of telephone conference.  We are satisfied in this case that it is unlikely that an ELAAS representative would have been of assistance to the Appellant.  In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal.