R J Budge (Mining) Ltd v Revill [1995] UKEAT 370_94_3010

EAT

R J Budge (Mining) Ltd v Revill

[1995] UKEAT 370_94_3010 · 1995-10-30

"I was dismissed by the respondent named overleaf ostensibly because my position was made redundant. I believe I was unfairly selected for redundancy. I was sexually harassed by Mr Terry Hassell, a Manager, following which I went on the sick through my nerves and depression. I was then selected for redundancy."

When you look at her evidence, she said, "I was there about a week" when she moved immediately after the alleged harassment, "suffering from anxiety under my General Practitioner's care. I say this was caused by my treatment, that is to say the harassment that I had received."

She saw the Managers on 7 May 1993 when she was still away sick.

"They asked me to think about redundancy and asked what had caused my problem. My reply was sexual harassment by Mr Terry Hassell. To this Mr Campbell replied `Yes, he was a naughty boy'."

It seems to us "plain as a pikestaff" from that, that the natural meaning of what she was saying was that she was made ill by the harassment which had occurred and that this was why she was dismissed. She was alleging, whether rightly or wrongly, a causative nexus, between her dismissal and the harassment which she had received.

In those circumstances, we think that that was a matter which should have been looked into by the Industrial Tribunal. It is not a case of its never being raised; it was a case which was raised on the face of the documents and the fact that the person who appears in person does not due justice to what they said plainly on paper, does not mean that the matter is not raised.

In those circumstances, we think (with great respect) that it is fairly arguable that the Tribunal should have looked into that matter and should have considered whether it was victimisation in the act of dismissal.

It is true, as Mr Bowers has very fairly said, that that might not "get her home". That is not the point; the point is that the Tribunal should have considered the whole case as it appeared to them. They are under a duty, which they discharge to the best of their ability, of course, to enquire into matters which are complained of to them and we think that this is a matter which is fairly arguable and should be argued before us; it is something they should have considered so we allow the amendment.