[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service v. Ash & Ors [2001] UKEAT 0426_01_2211 (22 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0426_01_2211.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 0426_01_2211, [2001] UKEAT 426_1_2211

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS NAGEENA KHALIQUE (Of Counsel) Instructed by Messrs Paris & Co Solicitors The Marble Lodge Cocksparrow Street Warwick CV34 4ED
For the Respondent	MR NICHOLAS TOMS (Of Counsel) Instructed by Messrs Thompsons Solicitors Congress House Great Russell Street London WC1B 3LW


 


MR JUSTICE NELSON

1. On the 6th February 2001 the Employment Tribunal at Southampton held that the Appellant, the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, had sought to prevent or deter the three Respondents, Stephen Ash, Richard Carrington and Simon Green, firemen employed by them, from taking part in the activities of an independent trade union. The Employment Tribunal found that by so acting the Appellants were in breach of section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a declaration to that effect. The essence of the Appellants appeal is that the Employment Tribunal failed to construe the provisions of section 146 of the Act properly and made perverse findings.
2. The matter was heard over five days with evidence from four senior fire officers on behalf of the Appellants and evidence from each of the Respondents and a retired fire-fighter. The Tribunal's decision is set out in 12 pages of extended reasons.

The Facts.

3. In the early part of 1999 allegations of harassment and bullying by fire-fighters in the Red Watch at Basingstoke Fire Station were made. A report was sent by Divisional Officer Ambler to Deputy Chief Fire Officer Murrell on the 8th April 1999. The matter was so serious that Mr Ambler feared a breakdown of the very fabric of the Red Watch. The investigation had to be carried out with the utmost care and sensitivity.
4. On 14th April 1999 five members of the Red Watch, some of whom were active members of the Fire Brigade Union, (FBU) were suspended. Mr Murrell contacted Mr Ash in his position as chairman of the Hampshire Branch of the FBU shortly after 9 a.m. on the 14th April 1999 to inform him of the suspensions and the investigations which were to take place that day and the following day. Mr Ash sought to arrange representation for those persons who were to be interviewed as witnesses but no one was available on the 14th April. Mr Murrell had made a deliberate decision not to tell the FBU of the suspensions until after 9 a.m. on the 14th April 1999 as he wanted to avoid disruption and obtain "clean evidence". On the morning of the 15th April Mr Carrington went to Basingstoke for the purposes of assisting witnesses as a union representative. Mr Ash had tried to obtain the services of Mr Green, in his position as chairman of the branch at Basingstoke, but he was away from work unwell with influenza. He did however appear at the premises later, but was not welcomed by management as they had expected Mr Carrington to be the only person dealing with representations.
5. The Appellants wished Mr Carrington's role to be limited to being available on the premises to be contacted by any of the witnesses who might need his assistance, but with their agreement, Mr Carrington attended part of an interview with fire-fighter Chalk as union representative and also attended the interview of fire-fighter Crook in the same capacity.
6. The atmosphere at the fire station was tense and when Mr Chalk and Mr Crook, or one of them amended their witness statements, as others had also done, the suspicion arose that Mr Carrington had played some part in those amendments being made, at least in the case of Mr Crook. It was said that these two witnesses or certainly one of them was nervous.
7. The following day, the 16th April 1999 Mr Green attempted to organise an FBU branch meeting at Basingstoke Fire Station. Mr Crook and Mr Chalk were both interviewed but neither of those interviews provided any evidence that Mr Carrington or Mr Ash or Mr Green had placed any pressure upon Mr Chalk or Mr Crook. Both these officers were transferred to a different fire station.
8. On the evening of 16th April 1999 Mr Murrell spoke with Mr Paine, the FBU Executive Council Member to express his concerns. He said that he was considering the suspension of Messrs Ash and Carrington on the basis of alleged interference with witnesses. He said that Mr Ash had asked for access to witness statements which had already been made, which he was refused, but the request caused Mr Murrell concern. He was also worried that Mr Ash had not mentioned support for the victims. Mr Paine's response to Mr Murrell stating that he was considering suspending Mr Ash and Mr Carrington was to suggest that matters might be dealt with by withdrawing them from the investigation. This was done with their agreement.
9. No investigation into the allegations made against Mr Ash or Mr Carrington was commenced and on the 6th June Mr Ash wrote to Mr Murrell seeking the withdrawal of the allegation and expressing concern that the threat of suspension had not been withdrawn. He received a reply on the 28th June stating that as the matter related to a significant formal disciplinary investigation Mr Murrell was not able to correspond with Mr Ash at that time. Mr Ash therefore wrote to Mr Murrell again on the 7th July 1999 stating that as his withdrawal from union involvement in the investigation was based on an informal complaint which had no standing in the disciplinary regulations, he was, with the full support of his EC member and FBU head office, reverting to his previous role in relation to the investigation. On the 19th July 1999 Mr Murrell said that he was in possession of evidence of "possible inappropriate activity" by Mr Ash and Mr Carrington in connection with the gathering of evidence from witnesses and a formal notice of investigation was later served on both Mr Ash and Mr Carrington. On the 4th August 1999 Mr Murrell wrote to Mr Ash informing him that he could not be included in a general discussion on the discipline investigation at Basingstoke because he was himself the subject of an investigation related to the Basingstoke investigation. Any communication by him was regarded by the Service as possibly prejudicial to the harassment and bullying investigation.
10. That investigation into the witness interference allegations was carried out by Mr Appleby from the Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Service. His report which was published in November 1999 concluded that although "there was strong circumstantial evidence that Mr Chalk and Mr Crook had been influenced to change their statements, and the most likely culprits were Messrs Ash and Carrington", it was nevertheless his view "that Messrs Chalk and Crook were mostly likely to have changed their statements of their own volition" whatever the circumstantial evidence might suggest. (Para 7(k) E.T. decision). In these circumstances a recommendation was made that despite the strong circumstantial evidence to support the allegations no further action would be taken. The notice of investigation was withdrawn. Mr Appleby's report was not published until after the main investigation into the bullying and harassment allegations had been completed.
11. As far as Mr Green was concerned he had been told to leave the fire station on the 15th April 1999 without taking part in any witness representation although he had spoken to some members of the work force. On 19th April 1999 Mr Green was served with a notice of investigation that he had unduly interfered with witnesses and he was suspended from duty on full pay from that day. In December 1999 he was served with a charge sheet which included an incident some 8 years earlier but did not include any allegation relating to interfering with witnesses on the 15th April 1999. No investigation took place at any time into these charges which were withdrawn in November 2000. The suspension of Mr Green was lifted at the same time. It has also been suggested that Mr Green had wrongly sought to call a union meeting on the 15^th April 1999. Mr Green had in fact been sick for the entire period from 19th April 1999 and formally went on sick leave after his suspension had been lifted.
12. Mr Ash and Mr Carrington lodged a grievance alleging that they had been prevented from carrying out their union duty. Those grievances were heard and dismissed and appeals are outstanding. Mr Green also lodged a grievance which has not been finalised yet.

The Employment Tribunal's decision.

13. The issues which the Employment Tribunal had to resolve were essentially factual. At the heart of the case they had to determine whether the Appellant's actions were taken because of genuine concern about the integrity of the investigation and the need to take action when allegations of interference with witnesses arose, or whether they were in truth acting to prevent or deter the three Respondents from engaging in the legitimate union activities of representing those witnesses who were members of the FBU in the harassment and bullying investigation.
14. That the Employment Tribunal recognised the importance of this central issue is clear from their decision. In paragraph 12 they stated that the most significant task for them to decide was whether the acts on the part of the Respondent took place "for the purpose of" preventing or deterring any one of the Applicants from taking part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time or penalising them for doing so. In setting out the cases for the parties in paragraph 13 of the decision they stated that:-

"The case for the Applicants is that employer effectively

prevented, deterred or penalised them for their trade union

activities whereas on the other hand the Respondent says that it

took the actions which it did because the Applicants were

allegedly interfering with witnesses in a disciplinary

investigation and additionally, in the case of Mr Green, that he

had attempted to set up an unauthorised union meeting."

15. The Tribunal expressly considered the case of Gallacher -v- Department of Transport [1994] IRLR 231 and the need for them to distinguish between the purpose of the employers in acting as they did and the effect of them acting as they did.
16. They found that it was part of the proper activities of the union to liaise with witnesses in an investigation and that it was the custom and practice for union representatives to have the right to sit in with witnesses at interviews and to assist them generally. Furthermore that this had been specifically permitted from the 15th April 1999 onwards. They found that Mr Ash and Mr Carrington were in fact prevented from being involved with the Basingstoke investigation as the IT3 effectively acknowledged, but recognised that they had to consider the employer's purpose.
17. The Tribunal described the actions which were alleged to constitute detriment under the Act as, in the case of Mr Ash and Mr Carrington, being subjected to a formal disciplinary investigation and prevented from taking part in trade union activities in relation to the Basingstoke members. In so far as Mr Green is concerned the detriment was being suspended, put under notice of investigation and charged with other disciplinary matters as well as being prevented from taking part in trade union activities in relation to Basingstoke members. It was not contended by the employers before the Employment Tribunal that any of these matters did not constitute detriments and this concession has not been withdrawn before us save in the sense that it is submitted that if the employers actions in suspending or investigating the Respondents conduct were lawful they could not amount to a detriment.
18. The Tribunal concluded in paragraph 16 that the purpose of the employers was to exclude Mr Ash and Mr Carrington from their legitimate union activities and that they achieved this effect. They came to the same conclusion in so far as Mr Green was concerned stating in paragraph 17(a) that it was clearly the employers purpose to exclude Mr Green from his union activities, and continuing his suspension for as long as possible had the effect of so excluding him.
19. The matters which led the Tribunal to this conclusion are set out in paragraphs 14, 15 and 17 of their decision. They found that the delay in carrying out the investigation of the allegations against Mr Ash and Mr Carrington was of significance. They did not accept the Appellants explanation that it was the Respondents own unions agreement to withdraw them from the main investigation that explained the delay but concluded that serious allegations such as those made against Mr Ash and Mr Carrington "would have been investigated without delay had there being genuine concern about them." Mr Murrell had said that he did not wish Mr Ash or Mr Carrington to have undue influence with witnesses but had taken no steps to see whether the allegations of interference were well founded. He had not investigated beyond the interviews with Mr Crook and Mr Chalk on the 16th April and yet those interviews provided no evidence that either Mr Ash or Mr Carrington, or indeed Mr Green, were involved with any pressure upon Mr Chalk or Mr Crook. They stated their belief that had it not been for the involvement of Mr Ash or Mr Carrington with the union, they would not have been subjected to the investigation which Mr Appleby eventually carried out.
20. The features which influenced the Tribunal in their decision were that Mr Murrell did not want the union to be involved on the 14th April 1999 and for that reason had not informed the FBU until after 9 a.m. that day that the five employees had been suspended. That effectively meant that there could be no union representation when the witnesses were being interviewed. Mr Murrell's evidence that he had mistakenly told Mr Ash on the 15th April that he thought that union representation had been available on the 14th April was not accepted by the Tribunal who found that he would have been clear as to whether or not any representation was available on that day, particularly as he had decided not to share the information about the suspensions with the union until after 9 a.m. on the 14th April. The Tribunal were therefore specifically rejecting part of Mr Murrell's evidence on oath.
21. Mr Murrell had said that he had found Mr Ash's request to have sight of the draft witness statements to be very worrying as it suggested a danger of interference with witnesses. There was in fact a dispute as to whether such a request had ever been made but the Tribunal concluded that the request, even if made, should not have made Mr Murrell suspicious in view of the fact that Mr Carrington would have been able to have considered the statements on the 15th April when he was permitted to sit in with the witnesses when they considered their draft statements. This finding clearly questioned the strength of Mr Murrell's stated suspicions, especially, as the Respondents submit, in view of the fact that there was no evidence that Mr Ash saw Mr Chalk's statement until after he had already amended it, and that any amendments made were insignificant.
22. Finally, in relation to Mr Ash and Mr Carrington, the Tribunal stated that there was no more than suspicion against these two Respondents, that there was only the "flimsiest of evidence" and the Appellants used the investigation at a later time for a purpose other than purely to look into the activities of Mr Carrington and Mr Ash. In other words the Tribunal were reiterating their view of the evidence that the matter would have been investigated without delay had there been genuine concern about it.
23. As far as Mr Green was concerned the Tribunal found it extraordinary that if the Respondent "genuinely feared" his activities or possible activities then it was "quite extraordinary and inexplicable that there should have been no investigation or any interview with Mr Green over a period of 19 months during which Mr Green remained suspended." They also found it extraordinary that the Appellants went back to 1990 to produce allegations under the disciplinary procedure which suggested to them that they were doing all that could be done to continue the suspension for as long as possible with the effect of excluding Mr Green from his union activities. "Had there been any genuineness in pursuing the allegations for what they were, then surely the Respondent would have pursued them. From these facts we are well able to draw a clear inference of the purpose behind all this and why the Respondent acted as he did."
24. The Tribunal also concluded that the Appellants purpose in excluding Mr Green from their premises was not to do with his health but in order to exclude him, as they were not expecting to see him at the premises.

The Appeal.

25. The Appellants contend in grounds (a) and (b) of the amended Notice of Appeal that the Tribunal misconstrued the meaning of section 146 of the Act and in particular the meaning of "purpose" as defined in the Act, and "failed to give adequate consideration to the purpose of the Appellants actions as distinct from the effect thereof on the available evidence and in the light of Gallacher -v- Department of Transport [1994] IRLR 231."
26. Section 146(1)(b) of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as amended provides that:-

"An employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment as an

individual by any act or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer if

the act or failure takes place for the purpose of -

(b) preventing or deterring him from taking part in the activities of an

independent trade union at an appropriate time or, penalising him for

doing so."

27. Section 148 of the Act as amended provides that it is for the employer to show the purpose for which he acted or failed to act on a complaint under section 146.
28. In Gallacher Lord Justice Neill stated that "in my judgment in this context 'for the purpose of' connotes an object which the employer desires or seeks to achieve." (Paragraph 27). On the facts of that particular case the Industrial Tribunal had failed to distinguish between the employer's purpose in acting as it did and the effect of its actions. There, the purpose of the interview board's recommendation was to ensure that only those with sufficient managerial experience were passed fit for promotion, even though the effect of their recommendation that the Applicant needed more managerial experience might have deterred him from continuing with his full time trade union activities.
29. In the present case the Employment Tribunal at paragraph 16 of the extended reasons expressly considered the Gallacher case and were plainly aware of the importance of distinguishing between "purpose" and "effect". But the fact that they concluded that "in the case before us the purpose and effect are really the same" and that "the purpose of the Appellant was to exclude the Applicants from their legitimate union activities and the effect of this was achieved" demonstrates, the Appellants contend, that they failed adequately to distinguish between purpose and effect.
30. We do not however consider that there is any merit in this contention. The Tribunal expressly considered the distinction and the fact that they concluded that the purpose and effect were the same does not indicate that that distinction had become blurred in their minds. If, as they in fact found, the purpose of the Respondent was to exclude the Applicants from their legitimate union activities and that that purpose was achieved the finding that purpose and effect were really the same was justifiable. In relation to Mr Ash and Mr Carrington the Tribunal said in paragraph 16 "the purpose of the Respondent was to exclude these two Applicants from their legitimate union activities and the effect of this was achieved." In relation to Mr Green the Tribunal said in paragraph 17(a) "it suggests to us that the Respondent was doing all that it could to continue the suspension for as long as possible, which had the effect of excluding Mr Green from his union activities. Moreover, as with the case of Messrs Ash and Carrington, this was clearly the purpose of the Respondent."
31. Whether the Tribunal were right or wrong in these findings is a matter which will be addressed under the ground of appeal which alleges that the findings were perverse, but these conclusions, and the manner in which they were expressed, do not indicate any failure to distinguish between purpose and effect.
32. There is however a second line of attack on the Tribunal's consideration of purpose and effect. The Appellants submit that the Tribunal failed properly to consider the sequence of events on the evidence, and in particular failed to consider the uncontested evidence that in so far as Mr Ash and Mr Carrington were concerned the decision to withdraw from participation in the investigation into harassment and bullying was a voluntary one, made with the agreement of the union representative, Mr Paine, rather than forced by the Appellants actions. Thus the Tribunal did not have properly in mind that the Respondents were not prevented from carrying out their union activities by the Appellants actions, nor that none of the witnesses were without union representation should they have needed it.
33. Had the Tribunal had this evidence in mind they would not have failed to appreciate that the Appellants purpose was to protect the integrity of their investigation and not to prevent the Respondents from carrying out their union activities.
34. The sequence of events must be considered firstly at the time when Mr Ash and Mr Carrington were withdrawn and secondly when Mr Ash sought to revert to his previous role in the investigation and was notified that he and Mr Carrington would be subjected to a formal investigation. In relation to the withdrawal from the investigation on the 16th April it was not contested before the Tribunal that after Mr Murrell had told Mr Paine that he was considering suspension of both Mr Ash and Mr Carrington on the basis of the allegation of interference with witnesses Mr Paine suggested that matters might be dealt with by withdrawing Mr Ash and Carrington from the investigation and this was done. (Paragraph 7(i) extended reasons).
35. The Tribunal found that that agreement did not justify delay in investigating the allegations against them and indeed concluded that had there been genuine concern about them the allegations would have been investigated without delay. The fact that the withdrawal after consultation with Mr Paine did not play any greater part in the Tribunal's decision than this, is the Respondents submit, because the point was not highlighted in argument before the Tribunal. In any event the Respondents contend, the Tribunal's finding that delay was inappropriate in the circumstances was correct and that although there was no finding upon it, it was questionable whether the withdrawal was truly consensual in view of the fact that the threat of suspension had been made to Mr Paine. It is to be noted that the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of their decision considered that the detriment which Mr Ash and Carrington had suffered was being subjected to a formal disciplinary investigation and prevention from taking part in trade union activities. As far as Mr Green is concerned they considered the detriment was being put under notice of investigation, charged with other disciplinary matters, being suspended from work and prevented from taking part in trade union activities. They therefore had in mind the difference in the position of Mr Ash and Mr Carrington on the one hand and Mr Green on the other.
36. The Appellant submits that withdrawal from the investigation by consent continued through June and July and when Mr Ash sought to revert to his role in the investigation he was denied that right, again by the agreement of Mr Paine the union representative, who agreed with Mr Murrell that Mr Ash and Mr Carrington should be subject to a formal investigation.
37. The evidence before the Tribunal was however not entirely clear upon this issue. The letter of the 7th July 1999 in which Mr Ash had asked to revert to his role in the investigation stated that his withdrawal was based on an informal complaint made to Mr Paine, a procedure that had no place within the discipline regulations. "As such we have, as a union, decided that your informal complaint has no standing and therefore I will be reverting to my previous role in relation to this investigation; that of acting as point of contact between HFRS and the FBU. This action is taken with the full support of my EC member and FBU head office."
38. Mr Murrell accepted in cross-examination that the letter was an official letter from Mr Ash, and Mr Ash said in unchallenged evidence that Mr Paine was sent a copy of the letter of the 7th July 1999 and was involved in the decision making process.
39. The Tribunal in its decision at paragraph 7(i) treated this letter as being an official letter by stating that a copy of it was sent to Mr Paine "which was appropriate because the letter arose from a decision of the union that the informal complaint to Mr Paine had no place within the disciplinary regulations."
40. Whilst therefore the Tribunal did not expressly consider Mr Murrell's evidence that he had discussed and agreed the question of formal investigation with Mr Paine, they clearly found that the letter of the 7th July 1999 was an official letter, arising from a decision of the union, and that Mr Paine had been consulted upon it.
41. It is correct therefore that the Tribunal did not recite each and every item of evidence given on the sequence of events but we are satisfied that they did give proper consideration to that sequence and the evidence upon it. They did not consider that the delay in investigating the allegations against Mr Ash and Mr Carrington was justified by any agreement with Mr Paine on the 16th April, and they found that notice of investigation was served upon Mr Ash and Mr Carrington only after the official letter from Mr Ash bearing the decision of the union had been sent to Mr Murrell.
42. We remind ourselves that the Tribunal decision is not to be construed as if it were the product of refined legal draughtsmanship. It has to contain an outline of the facts, a summary of the Tribunal's factual conclusions, and a statement of reasons which have led them to reach those conclusions. We are satisfied that they have performed this task adequately in this case and that their consideration of the evidence does not demonstrate any failure on their part to fail to distinguish between purpose and effect. This remains our view even though the Tribunal do not draw as clear a distinction as they might between the roles of Mr Ash and Mr Carrington, the latter not having sought to revert to any role in the investigation. Nevertheless he, like Mr Ash, became the subject of formal investigation and it is that matter which the Tribunal considered as a detriment in paragraph 8 of their decision in respect of both those Respondents.
43. In the amended grounds of appeal the Appellants had sought to contend that the Respondents had no legitimate interest in the preliminary investigation either as employees or as trade union members. At the preliminary hearing it had been contested whether there was any evidence upon which the Tribunal could have found, as they did, that it was the custom and practice for the FBU to be present and assist when witnesses were interviewed. Neither of these points has been fully pursued before us, rightly in our view, as there was clearly evidence of such a custom and practice which was open to the Tribunal to accept and there was also evidence that specific permission was given from the 15th April 1999 onwards.
44. The Appellants formally abandoned any reliance upon ground (e) in the amended grounds of appeal which alleged that causation had not been established.
45. In ground (c) the Appellant alleged a failure to give adequate consideration to the weight of evidence as to motive and purpose and in particular failed to consider the voluntary nature of the agreement to withdraw representation. We have dealt with this ground when considering the sequence of events and the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with the evidence upon that. We deal here with this contention in so far as it involves the proposition that the findings of fact were perverse. We consider ground (d) of the amended notice of appeal which expressly alleges perverse findings of fact in respect of the purpose of the Appellants actions under this head as well.
46. The essence of these propositions is that the Tribunal failed to grasp the central issue in the case and simply failed to appreciate that the true effect of the evidence was that the Appellants were at all times seeking to protect the integrity of their investigation into the bullying and harassment allegations and in doing so had to exclude the three Respondents against whom there was suspicion of interference with witnesses which might prejudice that investigation.
47. The Appellants submit that whatever the final conclusion of the Appleby report into the conduct of Mr Ash and Mr Carrington it certainly showed that there were proper grounds for suspicion by its reference to strong circumstantial evidence against Mr Ash and Mr Carrington. This, together with the conciliatory response of Mr Paine on behalf of the FBU shows that there were genuine grounds for concern in so far as the conduct of Mr Ash and Mr Carrington were concerned and that any finding to the contrary was perverse.
48. We have read the Tribunal decision and notes of evidence with care. It is clear from them that the Tribunal gave careful consideration to the evidence from each side and in particular the evidence of Mr Murrell and the Respondents. It is abundantly clear that in coming to their conclusions they rejected important parts of Mr Murrell's evidence. They rejected his evidence that he thought union representation was available on the 14th April when it was not. Their findings in paragraph 15(b) clearly indicate that they rejected his explanation on that matter. They found that he did not want the union be involved on the 14th April 1999 and for that reason had not informed the union of the suspensions until after 9 a.m. that day. It is implicit in their finding at paragraph 15(a) that Mr Murrell took that action knowing that it effectively meant that there could be no union representation that day.
49. The Tribunal also found that the evidence against Mr Ash and Mr Carrington was flimsy and that Mr Murrell knew that the interviews of Mr Crook and Mr Chalk provided no evidence that any of the three Respondents were involved in placing any pressure upon those witnesses.
50. In these circumstances, the finding that the allegations against Mr Ash and Mr Carrington would have been investigated without delay had there been genuine concern about them is a clear rejection of the Appellants case. Whether that be right or wrong on the facts is not a matter for us to determine. There was clearly evidence before the Tribunal upon which they could make such a finding and reject the Appellants case. They plainly rejected significant parts of Mr Murrell's evidence having had the opportunity of hearing that evidence.
51. The Appellants have not in these circumstances demonstrated to our satisfaction that the Tribunal's findings were perverse. It cannot be said that no reasonable Tribunal could have reached the conclusions on the facts which this Tribunal did nor that their findings are plainly wrong or fundamentally wrong or make no sense.
52. As to ground (f) the Appellants conceded that if their actions were unlawful in issuing a formal investigation notice against Mr Ash and Mr Carrington and in suspending Mr Green, those actions would amount to a detriment. It had not in fact been contended before the Tribunal that the actions complained of did not constitute detriments. We are satisfied that that concession was rightly made in view of the fact that "detriment" means nothing more than "putting under a disadvantage". Jeremiah -v- Ministry of Defence [1979] IRLR 436. If the Appellants actions were unlawful as the Tribunal found in that they were carried out for an improper purpose, detriment has been established.
53. We are satisfied that none of the grounds put forward by the Appellants can succeed and accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.

22nd October 2001