Appeal No.	 EAT/421/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 22 November 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR R N STRAKER
MS B SWITZER

MR SENN SOLOMANZ	APPELLANT

KINGSWAY COLLEGE CORPORATION	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR S SOLOMANZ
(In Person)	

JUDGE LEVY QC

1.	We have before us this morning the Preliminary Hearing of an Appeal by Mr S Solomanz (“the Appellant”) from a decision of an Employment Tribunal promulgated on 4 January 2000.  By his Originating Application made on 11 March 1998 the Appellant claimed that he had been a subject of victimisation, racial discrimination and unfair dismissal.  The matter was heard by the Employment Tribunal for 3 days in 1999 namely the 21, 22 and 23 July.  The Tribunal considered its decision in Chambers on 22 November and promulgated its decision on 4 January 2000.  The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Appellant and did not unfairly dismiss the Appellant nor was he a victim of an act of race discrimination.

2.	The Extended Reasons go into many sub paragraphs and it is clear that the matters raised by the Appellant in this proposed Appeal were clearly raised before the Tribunal.  The particulars of the Notice of Appeal attacked several findings of the decision but essentially what we find the Appellant is attempting to do is to have a second day in Court when he has had his day when matters were resolved against him.  He has had the benefit of seeing a Representative of ELAAS before this Appeal commenced but he has conducted it alone and we have listened carefully to his submissions for some 40 minutes.

3.	The first point, to which he took us, was a finding by the Tribunal which we have at page 20 of the bundle, paragraph 8 of the decision.  It reads thus:

“As to the claim of unfair dismissal.  The Tribunal find that the reason for dismissal was conduct namely the request by the Applicant for leave to study for the Open University Course to which he was not entitled and his insistence that he was so entitled.  The Tribunal finds that it was fair to treat that reason as a reason for dismissal.  The Applicant was in a position of trust.  That trust had been broken by his actions.  The Applicant is an intelligent man and there is no doubt that he had attempted to obtain paid leave to which he was not entitled and furthermore persisted in attempting to establish that he was so entitled when challenged whilst relying on documents and facts which did not support his argument.  The dismissal was fair.  Mr Williams did not dismiss the Applicant because he was black nor did he do so to victimise the Applicant because he had brought proceedings under the Race Relations Act 1976.”

4.	Among the findings made by the Tribunal prior to paragraph 8 was this at sub-paragraph 46(xlvi) at page 17 of our bundle being part of the findings, which commence at page 8 in paragraph 5:

“The Applicant’s disciplinary hearing took place on 2 December.  The Applicant produced at the disciplinary hearing a copy of the letter from the Open University dated 13 November 1997.  The Applicant produced certain documentation from the Respondent’s College purporting to support his claims in respect of entitlement to fees and leave for the Open University course both at and after the disciplinary meeting.  None of the documents supported the claims that the Applicant put forward.”

5.	The Appellant has produced to us today a copy of the letter of 13 November which was referred to at the disciplinary hearings about which the Tribunal made the above finding.  We have numbered the paragraphs of that letter sequentially.  The material words of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the letter reads 
“2.	I confirm that you are still a registered MBA student with this University, having successfully completed and passed examinations for courses B880 …..  Our records show you did not (underlyning added) complete course B887 – Managing Public Services in 1995, ….

3.	Although no reservation was made for study in 1997, it is felt that you may have been labouring under the misapprehension that you were entitled to resit examination for course B887 in October of this year, which is not (underlyning added) in fact the case.

6.	The Appellant before us suggested that in the light of that letter neither the disciplinary hearing nor the Employment Tribunal was entitled to reach the decision it did.  With respect to the Appellant, who is, as a Tribunal find clearly an intelligent man, that there were findings regarding course B887 which were entirely consistent with the evidence at his disciplinary hearing and the Employment Tribunal.  The letter speaks for itself and their respective finding were wholly justified by evidence which we have seen.

7.	The Appellant took us to certain other points in the findings which he said were inconsistent with the evidence but we have seen nothing to convince us that there were any such inconsistencies or that there was anything wrong with the findings of the Tribunal after a thorough investigation of the facts during a 3 day hearing.  

8	It is wrong to let an Appeal go to a full hearing unless an arguable point of law can be raised.  None of us would identify any point of law which was arguable.  In the circumstances, we dismiss the Appeal at this stage.