Former Specsavers DO loses tribunal appeal

An Essex dispensing optician, sacked by Specsavers in Basildon after a long-running dispute, has lost his appeal against an employment tribunal's decision that he was not unfairly dismissed.

The London-based Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed a challenge by Colin Smith, 45, against a Stratford Employment Tribunal decision earlier this year (News, August 5).

Announcing this latest decision, Judge David Richardson, said: 'The tribunal directed itself correctly in law.'

Smith and his wife Sa-ang, 43, a lab technician, had both sought compensation for unfair dismissal. Mrs Smith won her claim and was awarded 23,900 by the original tribunal. However, Mr Smith failed in his and then appealed to the EAT.

The sacking of the Smiths - from Leigh on Sea, Essex - came after shares in Basildon Visionplus, which runs the shop in a joint venture with Specsavers, were sold to an optometrist who was alleged to have 'threatened' Mr Smith. This was found not to be true by the tribunal.

The couple, later suspended and sacked following an investigation process, claimed they were unfairly dismissed after an incident where Mr Smith claimed to have become a 'whistle blower' over the practices of a colleague of which he did not approve.

Mr Smith, who since 1994 had been a DO at the outlet at 58-60 Tower Square, Basildon, owned by Basildon Visionplus, a subsidiary of the Specsavers Optical Group, claimed his sacking had been unfair.

However, the Stratford tribunal decision of earlier this year has now been upheld. Chairman Michael Haynes said the unanimous judgement of the tribunal was that Mr Smith's complaints were not well-founded and should be dismissed.

He had said that the decision to suspend Mr Smith had arisen from difficulties in carrying out an investigation and that the tribunal was satisfied that he had obstructed those enquiries, attempted to persuade staff to change their statements and interrupted an interview.

At the EAT hearing, Mr Smith's counsel Mark Sutton argued that the Stratford tribunal had, among other things, not paid sufficient attention to the break-down of relationships in the case.

However, Tom Croxford, for Basildon Vision Plus, had argued that the Stratford tribunal was entitled to reach its conclusion.