[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> ELC Investment Ltd (t/a Paradise Bakery) v. Valenti [2001] UKEAT 0870_01_0712 (7 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0870_01_0712.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 870_1_712, [2001] UKEAT 0870_01_0712

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR S CRAMSIE (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1. This is a Preliminary Hearing against a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at London Central. There was a ground of appeal which said:

"At the time of the tribunal/hearing I was unable to show the reason for the dismissal of Mr Valenti. I can now present the evidence to the tribunal for Mr Valenti's dismissal."

That refers to two statements of the incident which is said justify Mr Valenti's dismissal. It alleges a degree of sexual impropriety against Mr Valenti.

2. The Tribunal's decision was crisp. They said there should not be a postponement; there had already been one postponement at the request of the Respondent because of a Jewish holiday; that the Respondent had been aware of the hearing since 10 April which gave sufficient notice for the hearing on 16 May; that Mr Caplin had offered no reason why he did not apply in writing for a postponement (at the hearing Mr Caplin had appeared for the Respondent), that he was unable to explain why he had not applied, that he had had ample time to produce witnesses, that the Respondent could have applied for witness orders and that they were making serious allegations against the Applicant which should be dealt with expeditiously. This was a matter for the discretion of the Tribunal and we see no possible ground for our saying that there is an error of law in their view not to postpone.
3. The nutshell of the case is contained in paragraphs 9 of the Extended Reasons:

"Mr Caplin maintained that he received a telephone call from Eva Kempova in January 2001 at midnight. He says that she told him that Mr Valenti pushed her to a flour bag and tried to kiss her. Mr Caplin said he went to the shop and spoke to Misha, a cleaner who did not want to become involved, but said that Mr Valenti pushed Ms Kempova onto flour bags, kissing her and tried to rape her. There is no corroborative evidence for these assertions. The Tribunal makes no findings in relation to whether these matters occurred or did not occur.

During cross-examination the Tribunal pointed out at paragraph 11 that Mr Caplin told the Tribunal that when the incident occurred he dismissed both Mr Valenti and Eva Kempova and that this accounted for his difficulties in contacting Eva Kempova. He told the Tribunal that because of his experiences in the Israeli forces his policy was that when he had a problem both members of staff involved were dismissed. He said that this was his consistent policy. It seems that he did not tell Mr Valenti his reason for his dismissal until later. He told him the reasons some days later.

4. What is said before us is, firstly, that there should have been a postponement. We do not accept that for the reasons we have given. Secondly, it is said that the Tribunal should have assessed the contributory fault. In view of the fact that it was Mr Caplin's policy to dismiss both members of the staff when they in fact became involved in any sort of incident (and this was his consistent policy) and the fact that no inquiries or interviews took place before he dismissed and that he only told Mr Valenti the reason later, after he had dismissed him by telling him by not to come into work, we do not consider that the Tribunal can be said to have erred in not considering the issue of whether or not Mr Valenti had in fact contributed to his dismissal in the light of the findings.
5. We are very grateful that Mr Cramsie of ELAAS has come to assist us. We are bound to say that short though this decision is we can see no error of law. The ground, that we should admit the evidence now produced, is not one that is being pursued. We therefore dismiss this appeal.