![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Harrow v. Mungur [1999] UKEAT 978_99_1410 (14 October 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/978_99_1410.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 978_99_1410 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP
MISS C HOLROYD
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE
For the Appellants | MR R GREENING (of Counsel) Instructed by: Mr H Peart Principal Solicitor Harrow Legal Services London Borough of Harrow Civic Centre Station Road Harrow HA1 2UH |
JUDGE ALTMAN: This is an appeal by the employer from a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) on 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th May 1999. It comes before us by way of preliminary hearing to determine whether there is an arguable point of law to justify a full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
"If no explanation is then put forward or if the tribunal considers the explanation to be inadequate or unsatisfactory it will be legitimate for the tribunal to infer that the discrimination was on racial grounds."
"(1) We draw an inference from the evidence that the Respondent did not ensure that Ms Munnelly met the minimum criteria for the vacancy and because no explanation has been provided we draw an inference that Mr Mungur was less favourably treated on the grounds of his race.
53 It is therefore the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that Mr Mungur was not appointed on 13 March 1998 to the post of Assistant Manager because of his race and his complaint of racial discrimination in relation to this issue succeeds."
For the reasons that I have outlined, we are satisfied that there are arguable grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Appeal.
"(j) The Tribunal took into account the explanations of the Respondent. They did not find the explanations as to why there was a delay from 7 August onwards satisfactory and indeed from 10 September onwards, there could be no excuse for failing to provide the outcome of the grievance hearing, that being when the balance of the information on this aspect was available.
59 The Tribunal draws an inference from the evidence that the reasons for the delay in dealing with Mr Mungur's grievance were because of his race. It is therefore the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the Respondent racially discriminated against Mr Mungur in dealing with the delays in dealing with his grievance."
"Perhaps the management would like to consider identifying and offering Mr Mungur an opportunity to work in a suitable temporary position with similar duties and responsibilities."
The Employment Tribunal then set out the matters which they took into account and they concluded at paragraphs 62 and 63:
"62 The Tribunal was not satisfied with the explanation provided for the failure to implement the recommendation of Mr Alam. We therefore drew an inference from that failure that the reason for failing to implement the recommendation was because of Mr Mungur's race.
63. It is therefore the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the Respondent racially discriminated against Mr Mungur by failing to implement the recommendation of Mr Alam."
"a. Mr Mungur's own evidence (in cross-examination) dealing with the same post being readvertised in September 1998 and the whole of October 1998 interview/appointment process;
b. Mr Lambrick's and Miss Bozier's evidence about their consideration of and conclusion that Ms Munnelly met the criteria in March 1998."
"a. Mr Mungur's own evidence (in cross-examination) dealing with his complaint about Mr Fisher's role in the implementation of Mr Alam's recommendation;
b. Mr Alam's evidence (in cross-examination) about his recommendation and its implementation and Mr Fisher's role."