Appeal No.	 EAT/1138/96

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 14 February 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR L D COWAN
MS B SWITZER

MR B PATEL	APPELLANT

THE POST OFFICE	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	IN PERSON	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether Mr Patel has an arguable point of law in relation to a unanimous decision of an Industrial Tribunal which dismissed his complaint of unfair dismissal brought against the former employers, the Post Office.

	The essence of the complaint related to his dismissal allegedly for being involved in an incident with his supervisor, Mr Iqbal.  There may have been violence between the two of them in one form or another.  The employers investigated the matter.  There was a disciplinary hearing at which he was represented by his Trade Union.  The Tribunal concluded that they were satisfied that the interview was conducted in accordance with the disciplinary procedure contained in their code of conduct.  There was an allegation that Mr Iqbal “had it in” for certain members of staff like the Applicant and other employees who were related to the Applicant and who were mostly of Indian origin and that allegation was made during the course of the interview.

	There was a further investigation at which the decision maker came to the conclusion that on 22 August 1995 Mr Patel had behaved in, and I quote, “a violent manner towards Mr Iqbal and had deliberately refused to carry out an instruction given to him by Mr Iqbal and, as a result, that he should be dismissed”.  He was informed of his right of appeal and exercised that right.

	During the course of the appeal hearing a question arose as to whether the proposal that Mr Patel should be dismissed was out of line with comparable disciplinary decisions which had previously been taken by the Post Office and the Industrial Tribunal heard evidence about those matters and recorded this:

“9 (xiii)  ... Having carefully considered all the evidence in his possession he [the decision-maker at the appeal] concluded that on this date, ie 22 August 1995, the applicant had been insubordinate and had behaved in a violent manner towards a Supervisor, Mr Iqbal, and that this behaviour was so serious and unacceptable that it merited summary dismissal.  He accepted that the applicant was a good worker but he concluded this was not sufficient to uphold the appeal against the decision to dismiss the applicant.  He therefore dismissed the appeal.”

	The Industrial Tribunal finding that the dismissal was not unfair is contained in paragraph 12 of their Decision.  They were satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the belief which the employers had that he had been guilty of misconduct and that the employers had conducted a thorough and reasonable investigation of the circumstances relating to the incident.  They went on to say that Mr Patel was aware of the provisions of the disciplinary procedure which provided that both insubordination and also violent behaviour, on the part of an employee, could render him liable to dismissal.  They said that they were satisfied that the disciplinary and appeal hearings were conducted in a reasonable manner; that he and his representative were given a reasonable opportunity to state what they wished to do at both of those hearings; and they were also satisfied that despite the Applicant’s previous good work record the Respondents’ decision to impose the penalty of dismissal was one which fell within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer in the circumstances and accordingly, they dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal.

	There are three points which are raised on behalf of the Appellant in this case.  Firstly, that the Tribunal did not give proper consideration to the guidance given to Industrial Tribunals in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379.  It seems to us that that submission is simply unsustainable in the light of the way in which the Tribunal dealt with the matter, in the paragraph to which I have referred.  Secondly, that too much reliance was placed on the evidence collected by the alleged victim who was also a manager, and that Mr Patel had denied the assault.  As Mr Patel put it to us this morning, what actually happened in this case, was that the supervisor hit him, but the Post Office sacked Mr Patel.  That is his position.  But the Industrial Tribunal did not agree with that analysis.  The employers believed, on reasonable grounds, that Mr Patel had been guilty of such serious and unacceptable behaviour that it merited dismissal.

	The next point is that the Tribunal did not give proper consideration to the decision in another case, namely the importance of the question of harassment.  It seems to us that that was raised properly on Mr Patel’s behalf at the time before his dismissal and properly investigated by the employers and, in so far as it fell within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, was properly looked at by them, nor do we think it sustainable or arguable that the Tribunal did not properly address fully the issue of unreasonableness in the Decision having regard to Mr Patel’s unquestioned, admirable previous work record.

	Accordingly, we are satisfied that there is no arguable point of law raised by the prospective appeal and it is our duty, under the statute, therefore to dismiss this appeal, but we would not wish to leave this case without saying that we would hope that the Post Office would recognise, in any reference that they give to Mr Patel, his previous admirable working record and give that proper emphasis in any reference that they give to any prospective employer in future.