THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW v MISS P BHATT [2000] UKEAT 337_99_0507

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

BAILII case number: [2000] EAT 337_99_0507

Case No Appeal No. EAT/337/99

Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

Between

THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOWAPPELLANT

MISS P BHATTRESPONDENT

Before

His Honour Judge Wilcox Miss A Mackie

Date 5 July 2000

[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MRS LAURA COX QC Instructed by: Ms C Eaton Assistant Solicitors Borough Solicitors Office London Borough of Hounslow Civic Centre, Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN JUDGE WILCOX: This is an appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal held at London North on 2,3,4 and 5 June and 2,3,4,6 November 1998. The decision of the Tribunal in relation to the first originating application namely claims of race discrimination and victimisation under s.11 (a) 2 and 4 (2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 failed and the claims was dismissed. In relation to the second originating application, a complaint of discrimination also failed and the complaint was dismissed.

[2]The Tribunal found that Respondent did victimise the Applicant under s.2 and 4 (2) of the 1976 act and the Applicant's complaint of victimisation under the provisions of the 11976 act succeeded. The complaint that the Respondent did unfairly dismiss the Applicant within the meaning of s.95 (1) (n) 98 of the Employment Rights Act of 1996 also succeeded. It is against the last two determinations that the appeal lies.

[3]The Respondent is an instructor in Mother Tongue Skills, employed by the Appellant's Central Language Service to work at school placements. She lodged the four applications that I have made reference to. All allegations were denied. The Employment Tribunal at paragraph 5 of their decision, clarified the issues and at a interlocutory hearing, before the Regional Chairman they were characterised as: In relation to race discrimination whether the Appellant's unlawfully discriminated against the Respondent on the grounds of her race, by taking disciplinary proceedings against her, handling her health problems and failing to record her qualified teacher status and by selecting her for redundancy. In relation to the unfair dismissal, what was the reason for dismissal. The Appellant's positive case was that it was redundancy or some other substantial reason and if the reason was redundancy, were the Appellant's unfairly selecting the Respondent for dismissal for redundancy, having regard to the criteria of the 1998 act. Victimisation: Whether the Appellant unlawfully discriminated against the Respondent by victimising her, contrary to s. (2) of the Race Relations Act and the act of victimisation alleged, was the dismissal and the protected act was the bringing of the first originating application and all the Respondents' internal complaints.