Ayovuare v. Greenwich, Court of Appeal - United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, January 14, 2002,  UKEAT 0206_00_1401
|Resolution Date:||January 14, 2002|
|Issuing Organization:||United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal|
|Actores:||Ayovuare v. Greenwich|
Copyright 2002Appeal No. EAT/0206/00 & EAT/0339/00 EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 14 January 2002 BeforeTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BELLSIR GAVIN LAIRD CBEMISS S M WILSON CBE EAT/0206/00 - MR F O AYOVUARE APPELLANT LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH RESPONDENT EAT/0339/00 - LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH RESPONDENT MR F O AYOVUARE APPELLANT Transcript of Proceedings JUDGMENT Revised EAT/0206/00 & EAT/0339/00 APPEARANCES EAT/0206/00 & EAT/0339/00- 1 -THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BELL 1 These are appeals by Mr Ayovuare, to whom it is convenient to refer as the Applicant, and the London Borough of Greenwich, the Respondent, against the sums of compensation totalling £45,688.18 awarded by the Employment Tribunal by a decision dated 27 January 2000 in respect of claims for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Acts 1996 and racial discrimination by way of victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976. 2 Put shortly, the Applicant contends that the award for injury to his feelings as the result of victimisation was too low. The Respondent contends that some of the heads of compensation fall away as a result of, in effect, reversal of the finding of unfair dismissal and of some of the findings of victimisation and that the award for victimisation was in any event too high. 3 The proceedings between the parties have a considerable history which it is necessary to summarise in order to understand the scope of the appeals today. The Applicant is black, of African origin, by his own description. He was employed by the Respondent from 29 June 1987 in its Housing Directorate rising to Assistant Quantity Surveyor with a substantive grade of PO1 from 4 September 1996. In 1993 he brought successful proceedings against the Respondent before what was then the Industrial Tribunal for racial discrimination by way of victimisation. On 27 February 1998 he made a further application (Case 1100342/98) claiming discrimination and victimisation contrary to Sections 1 and 2 of the 1976 Act. In August 1998 he was dismissed from his employment by the Respondent. On 9 September 1998 he made a further application (Case 2303881/98) claiming that since his February 1998 application he had been subjected to further acts of discrimination and victimisation and that he had been unfairly dismissed. 4 All those claims were heard by the same Tribunal over several days between November 1998 and September 1999. The decision of the Tribunal with Extended Reasons dated 24 September 1999 was that, first, the Applicant had not been discriminated against on racial grounds; second, he was victimised contrary to Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976; third, he was unfairly dismissed; fourth, he contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 40%; and, fifth, there was to be a future hearing to determine remedies. 5 The Tribunal's decision set out, in paragraph 14 of its Extended Reasons, fifteen numbered allegations by the Applicant of discrimination and victimisation, a sixteenth allegation of unfair dismissal and seventeenth and eighteenth allegations of discrimination and victimisation in respect of his dismissal. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had been victimised but not discriminated against on grounds of race in respect of allegation (4) which involved the Respondent raising a Ms Madani to a salary grade spinal point higher than the Applicant in 1995, allegation (5) which involved a manager, Mike Smith, doubting and investigating the Applicant's associate membership of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, and allegation (9) which involved two allegations. The first was that a manager, Laurie Browne, high-handedly confiscated papers of the Applicant when he was suspected of doing private work and making private telephone calls and sending private faxes in the Respondent's time and on the Respondent's equipment. The second was that the Respondent failed to deal with the Applicant's complaints against Mr Browne separately from the disciplinary proceedings which the Respondent took against the Applicant in respect of his telephone calls. It found in his favour at paragraph (15) which covered much the same ground as the second allegation in paragraph (9), and on paragraph (16) that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal rejected all the other allegations made by the Applicant. 6 On 8 October 1999 and 29 November 1999 (in Chambers) the same Tribunal considered remedies. In respect of unfair dismissal it made a basic award of £2,112 and it made a total compensatory award of £19,128.86. For victimisation it awarded loss of earnings for failure to place the Applicant on a higher salary spinal point (that is the Ms Madani matter), including interest, of £1,247.32, and compensation for injury to feelings of £20,000 plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum for two years, making £3,200, which made a total award under all heads of £45,688.18. 7 Appeals were launched by the Respondent against the findings of victimisation and unfair dismissal, and against the Tribunal's decision to hear the Race Relations Act allegations though out of time. The Applicant appealed against the decision to find victimisation but not discrimination. Both parties appealed against the awards of compensation. The effect of two hearings of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and in particular of a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal promulgated on 2 March 2001 was that: - (1) the Respondent's appeal was allowed against the decision to...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL