Frimpong v London Underground Ltd [1994] UKEAT 183_94_2906

EAT

Frimpong v London Underground Ltd

[1994] UKEAT 183_94_2906 · 1994-06-29

HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC: On the 2nd April 1992 Mr Frimpong was employed as a Leading Railman working at London Bridge. An incident took place as a result of which, following a disciplinary hearing on the 27th April 1992, he was dismissed.

On the 20th July 1992 he made a complaint, by way of an Originating Application, to the London (South) Industrial Tribunal to which London Underground Limited made an answer on the 18th August 1992.

There was a hearing of his complaint on two days, 17th March 1993 and the 1st June 1993. The decision of the Tribunal was promulgated 23rd July 1993 when it was the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed.

From that decision Mr Frimpong wishes to appeal. He has addressed us this morning and the grounds of his proposed appeal largely rests on the re-opening of the facts as found by the Tribunal. In particular he suggests that really people ganged up against him to make up a story which simply was not true. In paragraph 12 of their conclusions, the Tribunal said of the Employers:

"We find that they considered the conspiracy theory put forward by the Applicant but rejected it on reasonable grounds."

That is something that was considered below and there was a finding made which it would not be open to this Tribunal to review.

Mr Frimpong also submitted to us that British Home Stores v. Burchell turned on entirely different facts; that is quite correct, but it is the principles of British Home Stores v. Burchell which the Tribunal refer to and which they, like us, legally follow. The conclusion which they reached in paragraph 11 of their findings is as follows:

"The case for London Underground was that the question was not whether the Applicant was drunk but whether the employers had reasonable grounds for believing he was drunk: British Home Stores v. Burchell . London Underground clearly believed the Applicant was incapable of carrying out his duties properly; they had reasonable grounds for their belief and did what they could by way of investigation. Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The trade union representative who had appeared at the disciplinary board hearing was very experienced and had never made any criticism of the 1991 incident being relied on. It was normal practice that written oral warnings could be used within a year in the same way as a caution. In any event it was a case which justified dismissal on its own facts."

The Tribunal had made findings of fact earlier in their findings which in our judgment was there on the evidence for them to make. In our judgment this is a quite hopeless appeal and must be dismissed at this preliminary stage. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal.