Meek v City of Birmingham District Council

An Industrial Tribunal must give reasons sufficient to tell the parties, in broad terms, why they won or lost. The decision must outline the material events, state the basic factual conclusions and explain how those conclusions led to the result. It must also permit an appellate court to identify any question of law.

Reasons need not be elaborate or contain a comprehensive analysis of every factual and legal issue. Nor is a detailed explanation of every factual finding obligatory. A decision nevertheless falls below the required minimum where it omits the basic factual narrative and gives criticisms without identifying their factual foundation.

Meek v City of Birmingham District Council concerned a council driver dismissed following allegations that he had taken council building materials and misused a council vehicle. An Industrial Tribunal found that he had been unfairly dismissed and ordered his re-engagement.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal, Popplewell J presiding, allowed the council's appeal. It found that the Industrial Tribunal had applied the wrong approach, omitted necessary factual determinations and introduced matters of doubtful relevance. It remitted the case for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal.

The employee appealed. The principal issue was whether the Industrial Tribunal had given reasons containing the minimum factual findings and reasoning required for the parties and an appellate court to understand its decision.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Bingham LJ delivered the leading judgment. Ralph Gibson LJ and Sir John Donaldson MR agreed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had correctly held that the Industrial Tribunal's reasons were deficient and had properly ordered a rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.
2. Required content of reasons. The governing procedural rule required a tribunal's written decision to contain its reasons. Those reasons had to provide an outline of the events giving rise to the complaint, a summary of the tribunal's basic factual conclusions and an explanation of why those facts produced its conclusion. The parties were entitled to know, in broad terms, why they had won or lost. There also had to be enough factual and analytical material for the Employment Appeal Tribunal or the Court of Appeal to determine whether a question of law arose.
3. Form and degree of detail. A tribunal decision did not need to be an elaborate or formalistic work of legal draftsmanship. It did not require a comprehensive analysis of the facts and law, and a detailed explanation of every factual finding was not obligatory. There was no rigid checklist governing the form of reasons. Those qualifications, drawn from UCATT v Brain [1981] I.C.R. 542, Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd v Crabtree [1974] I.C.R. 120, Varndell v Kearney & Trecker Marwin Ltd [1983] I.C.R. 683 and Martin v Glynwed Distribution Ltd [1983] I.C.R. 511, did not remove the minimum requirements of intelligibility and appellate review.
4. Application. The Industrial Tribunal gave no adequate account of the basic events. It did not state what property the council believed the employee had taken, how it believed he had misused its vehicle, what questions had been asked or answered, or what investigation had been undertaken. It criticised the council's investigation without identifying either the omitted inquiries or the underlying facts supporting those criticisms. The reasons therefore fell far short of the necessary minimum.
5. Order. The appeal was dismissed with costs, which were not to be enforced without leave of the court. The appellant's costs were ordered to be subject to legal aid taxation.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The employee's appeal was dismissed unanimously. The Employment Appeal Tribunal's order for a rehearing before a differently constituted Industrial Tribunal remained in force.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 1 May 1986, the tribunal, Popplewell J presiding, allowed the council's appeal. It held that the Industrial Tribunal's decision was flawed and remitted the case for rehearing by a differently constituted tribunal.
3. Industrial Tribunal: The tribunal found that the employee had been unfairly dismissed and ordered his re-engagement. Its decision was registered on 20 November 1985.