BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Sithole v. City & Hackney Community Services NHS Trust [2000] UKEAT 248_00_2911 (29 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/248_00_2911.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 248_00_2911, [2000] UKEAT 248__2911 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT)
(AS IN CHAMBERS)
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
MEETING FOR DIRECTIONS AND
For the Appellant | MR B TAKAVARASHA (Representative) |
For the Respondents | MR A MOORTHY (Solicitor) Messrs Beachcroft Wansboroughs Solicitors 100 Fetter Lane London EC4A 1BN |
MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT): I have before me, for directions only, the appeal of Miss A Sithole in the matter Sithole v City and Hackney Community Services NHS Trust.
"It is apparent, therefore, that we think that there is no arguable basis for any appeal, apart from:
1) An appeal based upon the finding against the Appellant that she had been fairly dismissed. The basis for that appeal being, as we have indicated, the question of whether or not the penalty imposed was one which, given the circumstances and background was appropriate;
2) And closely allied with that, whether there may or may not have been some evidence of victimisation, by reason of a heavier rather than lighter penalty being selected, which at least the Employment Tribunal should have explored. We are conscious that we may in the absence of submissions from the Respondent be reading more into extended reasons than is justified. None the less we feel some unease about the extended reasons given by the Stratford Employment Tribunal and think it proper that a full hearing should be held to explore those two issues only."
A little later there is a reference to the unfair dismissal argument as it had been identified by the Tribunal and to the victimisation argument.
(1) Oral evidence, if any, as to back-to-back working being or being regarded as a threat to the health and safety of patients or of fellow employees or members of the public, either generally or in specific instances relating to Miss Sithole's circumstances.
(2) Oral evidence, if any, as to sanctions imposed by this employer on others who had been held to have worked back-to-back and as to any distinctions between their cases and Miss Sithole's.
(3) Oral evidence, if any, as to the circumstances, if any, in which working back-to-back had either been authorised or required by management and as to any distinction between such circumstances and the circumstances in which Miss Sithole was placed.
(4) Oral evidence, if any, as to whether sanctions imposed on any others by reason of back-to-back working were or were said to be capable of being analysed in a way such as to suggest that Miss Sithole or other blacks were more heavily penalised than others and, if there was any oral evidence as to that, any oral evidence as to whatever differences there were and whether they could be attributed to the racial difference.
(5) Evidence, if any, as to when either respondent (Ms Downton or the Trust) first knew of Miss Sithole's IT1 having been presented to Stratford Employment Tribunal and as to who were the individuals at the respondents who did first learn of its presentation and any evidence as to when any individuals who were concerned in Miss Sithole's dismissal first learned of the presentation of the IT1.