Employment Judge I HenryIn person for claimantMr Colin Kelly - Counsel for respondentDate 18 September 2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that:1.1 The claimant has not been unfairly dismissed when his employment was terminated on the 28 July 2017 for reasons of gross misconduct.1.2 The claimant has not been discriminated against on grounds of his race or sexual orientation in respect of his employment being terminated.[2]The claimant’s claims are accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ Employment Judge I Henry Date: 14/8/18……………………….. Sent to the parties on: ....................... ............................................................ For the Tribunal Office Case Number: 3327687/2017 3328097/2017 2 Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case Number: 3327687/2017 3328097/2017 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr Cosmin Buhus v Asda Stores Limited
REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because the grounds on which the reconsideration is sought asks the Tribunal to reconsider the evidence heard on the premise that the Tribunal’s findings of facts do not meet the claimant’s version, giving consideration to Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (In Europe, the Declaration forms the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Convention in turn was incorporated in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Tribunal’s determinations were made on hearing evidence from both the claimant and the respondent, the conclusions on which are not affected by the submissions being made by the application for reconsideration. There is no new evidence advanced for which the decision of the Tribunal can be questioned. The interests of justice would not be served by a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s judgment. Case Number: 3327687/2017 3328097/2017 2