[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Powell v London Borough Of Islington [1999] UKEAT 1457_98_0903 (9 March 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1457_98_0903.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1457_98_0903, [1999] UKEAT 1457_98_903

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS M BUTLER (of Counsel) Messrs Collisons & Co Solicitors Nationwide Building 1-3 Hildreth Street Balham London SW12 9RQ


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: Because of alleged redundancy Mrs Hermine Powell lost her position as deputy manager of the Young Families Unit of the London Borough of Islington ["the Respondent"] and commenced proceedings in an Employment Tribunal because of the termination on 20th September 1996. Earlier, in May 1996, she began proceedings in the same tribunal alleging race discrimination. Both set of proceedings were consolidated. They were heard by an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North). The Employment Tribunal's hearing took place on 29th, 30th April and 1st May, so far as evidence was concerned, and on 17th August 1998 when final submissions were made. The decision of the Employment Tribunal was communicated to the parties on 13th October 1998. The unanimous decision of the tribunal was:

"that the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed and that her claims of racial discrimination are not made out and are dismissed."

From that decision Mrs Powell appealed. Her Notice of Appeal was undated but was received by this tribunal on 10th December 1998.

We have had the benefit of argument on Mrs Powell's behalf under the preliminary hearing procedure in this Court from Ms Butler. Essentially, what Miss Butler seeks to say is: looking at the behaviour of the respondent as a whole, a course of conduct can be seen from which discrimination can and should have been inferred.

We have listened carefully to all that Ms Butler has said and we have looked at the extended reasons in some detail. It is apparent to all of us that the Employment Tribunal went into the allegations made by Mrs Powell very carefully. The tribunal have set out her case and the case of the Respondent. The tribunal have made findings of fact. Those findings of fact suggest that there was no racial discrimination. Although the conduct of one member of the Borough comes in for some criticism, the Tribunal found that there was no unfairness about the events which took place.

In her skeleton argument, Ms Butler had suggested that it was made clear to Mrs Powell that she would not be welcome in the new structure which the Borough was to introduce which would lead to the loss of a position of deputy manager. In fact, it was not found by the tribunal that it was made clear to her; the opposite was found. Ms Butler also submitted that the ground rules had been changed to support another member in seeking a ring fenced post. There was an explicit finding of fact by the Employment Tribunal that this was not so.

In essence, what Mrs Powell wishes to do is to have a further hearing of her case before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, when facts which have been determined against her have been so determined in an Employment Tribunal following a lengthy hearing. There cannot be a rehearing of a case when no point of law arises. It is apparent to us that the decision of the Employment Tribunal was not perverse and was justified on the evidence which they heard.

Though we all have sympathy for Mrs Powell, who after a number of years at a job possibly through no fault of her own, has lost her job because of a redundancy, we cannot allow our sympathy to permit us to send forward an appeal which has no hope of success. In these circumstances, we dismiss it at this stage. We thank Ms Butler for her assistance to us.