Akanho v Le Pain Croustillant [1995] UKEAT 205_95_2007

EAT
Akanho v Le Pain Croustillant
[1995] UKEAT 205_95_2007 · 1995-07-20

JUDGE N BUTTER QC:

This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal in respect of a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at Whittington House in relation to a hearing of 14 and 15 November 1994.The Appellant had been employed for less than two years. He was dismissed in circumstances to which I shall refer shortly. His claim was on the basis that he had been racially discriminated against in that he was demoted in September 1992, when preference was given to white or Indian employees and that he was dismissed on grounds including racial grounds.He had been employed by the Respondents from 11 December 1990 to 3 October 1992. The facts referred to in the Tribunal's decision say this was at the bakery at Southall, but the Appellant says the bakery was at the Perivale site. He was an oven man. He had been promoted at one time to assistant shift manager and then subsequently demoted to floater.I pause to say that in paragraph 8 sub-paragraph 6 the Tribunal reviews the nationalities of the various employees and says that in early September 1992 there were then:
"8 white employees (4 English, 1 Irish, 2 Bulgarian, 1 French);
2 Indian;6 African (4 English and two Somalians)."A problem occurred when it became plain that bread products were being contaminated. There were various precautions built into the baking process which included a scanning device to eliminate metal contamination.A number of complaints were received during 1992. Three involved metal staples and one a metal paper clip which appeared to be a clear indication that the items had been deliberately introduced into the products and deliberately not put through the metal detector.The Tribunal reviewed the history of the matter in a fair degree of detail and dealt with the circumstances in which on 2 October 1992 D.C. Snowden came to the bakery and arrested the Applicant. Before he was taken to the police station he was dismissed. No charge was brought against him.The Tribunal considered the question of racial discrimination and correctly directed themselves in relation to their functions as can be seen from paragraphs 9 and 10 of their reasons and go on correctly, in paragraph 11 to say:
"11 The crucial third factor is to establish that the conduct, and the subsequent detriment, was based upon race."
The Tribunal goes on in paragraph 12 to deal with the demotion decision and in paragraph 13 to deal with the circumstances of the contamination.In this appeal today, the Appellant who appeared in person and who has (if I may say so) presented his case well, draws attention to the fact that he says that at the Tribunal the Tribunal was specifically asked to consider the question of the breakdown of the figures in respect of contamination in respect of the different bakeries. He said that if that had been shown, it might well be shown that his bakery (as I may call it) was not involved in, or in certainly the majority of the contamination which had taken place, which might in turn provide evidence that he was being "picked upon".The Tribunal in paragraph 14 of their decision however, although not dealing with that specific point, do deal specifically with the question of racial discrimination. They ask "what evidence of racial discrimination it has heard". They go on to say:
"14 .... There is no shred of evidence of either racial tension of the work floor, or of any conspiracy by the Indian element against the African element of employees, and certainly none of any encouragement or condonement of racial discrimination by the management."
They go on to say expressly:
" .... All the evidence called on behalf of the Respondent shows with a crystal clarity not only that the establishment professed an equal opportunity policy, but effectively practised an equal opportunity policy."
The Tribunal's decision goes on and in the end they say, quite simply, there is no evidence in support of the Applicant's contention that there was racial tension on the work floor. The Applicant has not made out his case on either limb of his applications and the case was dismissed.This Tribunal today has listened to what the Appellant has to say, but in the end we were entirely unpersuaded that there was any error of law on the part of the Tribunal, or that there is any justification for a suggestion that the Tribunal could not properly have reached the conclusion which it did.In all these circumstances, it must follow that the appeal fails and is dismissed.