Appeal No.	 EAT/844/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 9 November 1998

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MRS D M PALMER
MR G H WRIGHT MBE

MR R FERNANDEZ	APPELLANT

THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT 

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant		
For the Respondent		

	JUDGE D PUGSLEY:	In this case the Appellant seek to appeal against a decision of the London North Industrial Tribunal, promulgated on 6 May 1998 in which the Respondent was ordered to pay the Appellant the sum of £3,130.00, as compensation for unfair dismissal.  This hearing was purely concerned as to remedies.

	The Appellant failed to appear at the preliminary hearing on 9 November 1998.  Enquiries as to his whereabouts provided abortive.  We decided to proceed to hear the case to determine whether there was any issue of law which justified the case being heard at a full hearing. 

	By a decision promulgated on 10 November 1997 Tribunal had unanimously determine that the Appellant had been unfairly dismissed.  At the reconvened hearing on 26 February 1998 the Employment Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s claim for reinstatement and re-engagement.  They pointed out that the Applicant had been convicted on his own admission at Harrow Crown Court of an offence of fraud against the Respondent.  The Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s contention that the basis of trust which should exist between employer and employee had been destroyed and the Tribunal decided reinstatement or re-engagement would be inappropriate.   We do not consider that there are any misdirectings of law in the Tribunal’s decision on this matter.

	The Tribunal assessed the total award as compensatory award as about £50,000.  It decided that in view of the acts of dishonesty which came to light after his dismissal he should only receive the sum of £2,500; namely 5% of his loss.  The Tribunal made no reduction in respect of his basic award. 

	The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s contention that there should be a ‘nil award’ and the Applicant’s contention that there should be no reduction and that he should be awarded the maximum compensatory award of £11,300. 

	The Appellant has submitted a type written notice of appeal running to some 7 pages in length.  On the 5th page of that document he claims that his plea of guilty was “as a result of the Judge meeting with my barrister and the CPS and my solicitor being absent”.  He states that he is appealing against his pleas of guilty. 

	We have considered the submissions made by Appellant.  On the information before us we considered there is no arguable point of law and we therefore dismiss the appeal.  The Tribunal clearly had the relevant issues before them and we consider their decision as to the compensatory award was a matter which was within their discretion.  In these circumstances we dismiss the appeal.