Hoy & Anor v Miller Civil Engineering Ltd [1996] UKEAT 1002_95_1903

EAT
Hoy & Anor v Miller Civil Engineering Ltd
[1996] UKEAT 1002_95_1903 · 1996-03-19

JUDGE N BUTTER QC:

This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by Mr Hoy and Mr Daniels in respect of a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at Liverpool. The hearing was on 26 and 27 April and 4 May 1995. The Tribunal dismissed the applications which were brought under the Race Relations Act 1986 .Mr Daniels's employment began on 6 September 1993 and ended on 23 September 1994. Mr Hoy's employment began on 23 August 1993 and ended on 25 September 1994. They maintained, before the Industrial Tribunal, that they had been discriminated against by way of victimisation, because they had agreed to give evidence in other proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal. Those proceedings did not in fact come to a hearing but they, the Appellants, felt that because of their willingness to give evidence Mr Gotts, the Site Agent was "out to get them".The Tribunal heard a considerable amount of evidence and concluded in paragraph 6(5) of their reasons:
"6(5) ... When work there finished we accept that there was, in fact, no available alternative work for them [the Appellants] to do. ..."
In paragraph 7 they say:
"7 ... Having given careful consideration to all the information put before us we find ourselves quite unable to make the necessary causal connection between the two sets of events [the willingness to give evidence before an Industrial Tribunal in relation to other matters and the termination of their employment] ... . We do not accept that the reason for the termination of the applicants employment was, in fact, the reason they seek to establish, namely victimisation under racial discrimination legislation. There were proper operational reasons in existence for employments to be terminated by reason of redundancy, and that, we accept, was the true reason for what happened. The contract was coming to an end. The run-down was accelerating. Redundancies were inevitable. It might be that the redundancies could have been better implemented but that, on this occasion is not our concern."
Before the Tribunal today, it is argued on behalf of Mr Hoy and Mr Daniels, that the Tribunal made no finding as to whether the applicants were dealt with less favourably than others and in relation to the question, "Why were the two applicants selected" it is said that the Tribunal has failed to address that matter.It is true that they have not dealt with it specifically, but looking at the overall decision, it seems to us that it was implicit in the decision that they made that they had taken the relevant matters into account.In the result, we see no error of law and no perversity on the part of the Tribunal below and, indeed, we do not think that there is here sufficient argument to justify the matter going to a full hearing.In these circumstances, and for these reasons, we are unanimously of the opinion that this appeal fails and must be dismissed.