Mr B Mwendo v Cwmbran Centre for Young People Ltd: 1601427/2023
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s claims of; unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and direct race discrimination; all fail and are dismissed.REASONS
[1]The Claimant's letter attached to his email of 26 June 2024 set out his application for reconsideration of the Judgment. In that Judgment the Tribunal had concluded that the Claimant’s various claims should be dismissed. Issues and Law[2]Rule 70 provides that reconsideration of a judgment will take place where the Employment Tribunal considers that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.[3]Rule 71 provides that applications for reconsiderations of judgments should be presented in writing within 14 days of the date on which the written record was sent to the parties, or the date on which written reasons were sent (if later) and should explain why reconsideration is necessary. Case No: 1601427/2023 2[4]Rule 72 notes that the Employment Judge who chaired the full Tribunal which made the original decision shall consider any application for reconsideration made under rule 71, and that if the Judge considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked then the application shall be refused, and the Tribunal shall inform the parties of the refusal. Alternatively, rule 72 sets out the process that is then to be followed for further consideration of the application. The Application[5]The Claimant made his reconsideration application in three numbered sections, broadly as follows: 1) That the Tribunal did not discuss documents which the Claimant contended had been disputed. 2) That the Tribunal erred in law by placing undue weight on the Respondent’s’ witness evidence, whilst failing to adequately consider the Claimant’s evidence. 3) That the Tribunal made an error of law in concluding that the Respondent’s reasons for dismissal were sufficient to render he dismissal fair, despite the lack of a fair procedure being followed.Conclusion
[6]The Claimant made his reconsideration application considerably outside the stipulated time limit. The Tribunal’s written reasons were sent to the parties on 19 April 2024, which meant that any reconsideration application had to be made by 3 May 2024. However, it was not made until 26 June 2024. It therefore fell to be rejected on that basis.[7]In any event, I would not have considered that there was any reasonable prospect of the Tribunal’s original Judgment being varied or revoked[8]With regard to Ground 1, the Claimant was represented by Counsel at the hearing. Whilst counsel raised an issue about the delay in receipt by the Claimant of a statement from one of the Respondent’s witnesses (which was resolved) no reference was made to any concern regarding disputed documents. In any event, the concerns the Claimant appears to wish to raise about what he refers to as disputed documents were taken into account at the hearing.[9]Grounds 2 and 3 take issue with the Tribunal’s conclusions from the evidence it heard. If those are matters are to be pursued, they should be pursued by way of appeal rather than reconsideration. It is not appropriate for a Tribunal to revisit its conclusions simply on the basis that a party disagrees with them.[10]Even therefore if the Claimant’s reconsideration application had been valid, I would not have considered that there was any reasonable prospect Case No: 1601427/2023 3 of the Tribunal’s original Judgment being varied or revoked in any event. The Claimant's application for reconsideration was therefore refused.