[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Dagogo v Hampshire County Council [1998] UKEAT 1358_97_0302 (3 February 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1358_97_0302.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1358_97_0302, [1998] UKEAT 1358_97_302

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR L ADENEKAN (of Counsel) Messrs Awoloye Kio & Co Solicitors 199 Stockwell Road Brixton London SW9 9ST


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Appellant, a black social worker employed by the Respondent, complained to her employer concerning an incident on 23 July 1996 when a colleague made reference to the colour of her skin whilst they were sunbathing.

A meeting took place on 13 August 1996, on the morning of which she handed to the Service Manager, Mair Thomas, a list of seven alleged incidents of racial discrimination. These complaints were discussed at a meeting held on 4 September 1996. The Appellant complained of a difference in treatment between the way in which her complaints were investigated when compared with the complaint of sexual harassment by a fellow female employee.

Shortly thereafter she went off sick. On 21 October 1996 she presented a complaint of racial discrimination to the Industrial Tribunal. Attached to that complaint was a letter in which she stated that her complaints were not being taken seriously by her employer.

The matter came before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Southampton over four days, concluding on 9 July 1997. The Tribunal found that all her complaints were out of time, save for that in relation to the incident on 23 July 1996, which they dismissed.

Now there is an appeal. Our task at this preliminary hearing is to consider whether the appeal raises any arguable point or points of law to go to a full appeal hearing.

In our view it does. We think it arguable that the Appellant's complaint as to the investigation process brings the whole of her complaint within the primary limitation period. Secondly, we think it arguable that the Industrial Tribunal was wrong to conclude that the incident on 23 July 1996 did not amount to less favourable treatment on racial grounds.

In these circumstances we shall allow the appeal to proceed to a full hearing. It will be listed for three-quarters of a day; Category B; skeleton arguments to be exchanged between the parties, not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full hearing. Copies to be lodged with this Tribunal.