Appeal No.	 EAT/235/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 19 May 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MRS J M MATTHIAS
LORD DAVIES OF COITY CBE

MRS A BROWNE	APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IN PERSON	

	HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK:	This is an Appeal by Mrs Browne against a Reserved Decision of the Stratford Employment Tribunal (Chairman Ms V K Gay) promulgated with extended reasons extending to 29 pages on 6th January 1999, dismissing her complaints of race discrimination and unfair dismissal brought against her former Employer, the Respondent London Borough of Redbridge.

	History

	The Appellant is a black woman of West Indian origin.  She commenced her employment with the Respondent as a Social Worker on 8th June 1990.  From December 1996 she was managed by Mrs Shashia Sharma.  Between October 1994 and October 1995 the Appellant was absent from work on paid sick leave, the first 5 months being on full pay, the remainder on half-pay.  In the Autumn of 1996, she commenced a Teacher Practice course at Havering College, an institution separate from the Respondent.  In April 1997 the college decided that the Appellant could not continue her course.  In March 1997, she went off sick.  She never returned to work for the Respondent.  On 11th June 1997, she presented her first Originating Application to the Employment Tribunal alleging unlawful racial discrimination in the form of harassment by Mrs Sharma.  On 3rd June 1998, she presented a second complaint, here alleging unfair dismissal.  

	At a Directions Hearing held on 9th June 1998, a Tribunal chaired by Mr I F Pritchard-Watts and attended by Counsel for both parties, identified the issues to be determined in the consolidated applications at a substantive hearing.  The substantive hearing took place before Ms Gay’s Tribunal over 5 days between 16th-20th November 1998.  Counsel then submitted written representations – those on behalf of the Appellant ran to 22 pages.  There were lengthy submissions in reply.  The Tribunal considered the matter in Chambers on 21st December 1998.  There then followed the promulgated decision.  

	The Appellant applied for a review of that decision by letter dated 19th January 1999 with documents in support.  That application was considered and dismissed by Ms Gay by a letter dated 22nd January 1999 on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.  Against the substantive decision the Appellant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by Notice dated 3rd February 1999.  That was followed by a written statement prepared by the Appellant and dated 19th February. 

	Racial Discrimination

(1)	The Tribunal found that Mrs Sharma did not treat the Appellant less favourably than anyone else.
(2)	It found that it was Havering, not the Respondent that terminated the Appellant’s course at the college.  That was because she ceased to supervise a student.  It was a requirement that those on the Practice Teachers course carried out a minimum of 50 days supervision of a student.
(3)	Including among other things, was an incident in October 1994 when Mr Dickinson, Mrs Sharma’s Line Manager, lost his temper and shouted at the Appellant because she was late for an appearance before a Resources Allocation Panel for which act he later apologised, there was no material before the Tribunal from which they could draw an inference of less favourable treatment on the grounds of race.

	Unfair Dismissal

	The Tribunal rejected the Appellant’s claim that the Respondent behaved in such a way as to undermine the implied contractual term of mutual trust and confidence.  Nor was the Respondent in breach of contract by declining to exercise their discretion to extend paid sick leave beyond the contractual limit of 12 months expiring in March 1998.  There were no grounds for finding constructive dismissal and there was no actual dismissal by the Respondent.  That disposed of the claim of unfair dismissal.  

	However, the Tribunal went on to find that the Appellant had given no indication to the Respondent that she regarded the contract as “at an end” prior to presenting her second complaint to the Tribunal.  There was no dismissal at the time when she presented that complaint.  We have some reservations about that approach as a matter of law.  However, that is an additional finding, unnecessary to the principal finding of no repudiatory breach of contract.

	The Appeal

	Mrs Browne appears in person today.  She has told us frankly that she is unable to advance an error of law in the Tribunal decision which would entitle us to interfere with that decision.  Her complaints, understandable as they are, relate to the handling of her case below; the fact that her colleague, Mr Keane, was not called to give evidence; that she was not advised that she could withdraw her unfair dismissal application, but above all, that she was not believed.  It is right to say that in relation to certain material issues of fact the Tribunal rejected her evidence in favour of that given on behalf of the Respondent.  We have endeavoured to explain to her that that is the core function of the Employment Tribunal and a function with which we cannot interfere.

	Overall, she feels that she has been treated badly and let down both by her Employer and by the Tribunal system.  We understand those feelings but, our jurisdiction is limited in the way that we have described.  In the absence of any error of law we are unable to interfere and accordingly this Appeal must be dismissed.