It is incumbent on an Employment Tribunal (ET) to give adequate reasons for any decision it reaches, setting out, broadly speaking, its findings of fact, the questions of law and the resolution of disputes before it. The reasons should demonstrate to the parties involved that the ET has given acceptable answers to the right questions.
A black computer software consultant and business data analyst, whose employment with a high street bank was summarily terminated when he was less than three months into his contract, has won a fresh chance to prove that he was a victim of race discrimination (Kibirango v Barclays Bank plc and Another).
Charles Kibirango had joined Barclays Bank in Coventry in late 2012 to assist with the management of information about complaints of alleged mis-selling of payment protection insurance. After 11 weeks, his employment was summarily terminated by his line manager after the production of a report missed its deadline and relations between the two men had become strained.
Mr Kibirango brought a claim for race discrimination and harassment.
The bank insisted that his dismissal had nothing to do with his race and was due to his poor performance. The ET rejected his claim on the basis that it preferred the evidence of his line manager as to the events in question and the motives for his dismissal.
In allowing Mr Kibirango's appeal, however, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the ET's reasons were insufficient to enable him to understand why he had lost his claim. It was not enough for the ET simply to state that it preferred one witness's evidence over another's without also stating why that was the case.
In those circumstances, it was impossible to be satisfied that the case had been tried fairly and the matter was sent back to a fresh ET for rehearing.
For further information on this article and related matters, please contact our employment team on 0121 746 3300 or complete our online enquiry.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
