FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REF:	00234/01FET

CLAIMANT:			Wesley Hayes

RESPONDENTS:		1.	Bombardier Aerospace 
                                  	2.	Training and Employment Agency 

DECISION
The decision of the Tribunal is that:-

1.	The second named respondent Training and Employment Agency should be
dismissed from this case. 

2.	The claimant is ordered to pay to the second respondent the sum of £150.00 towards the costs of this hearing.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman:		Mr P Cross

Appearances:

The claimant did not appear and was not represented. 

The first named respondent wrote to the tribunal to state that it would not be attending or be represented and had no objection to the release of the second named respondent from the proceedings.

The second named respondent was represented by Mr M Robinson, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Departmental Solicitor’s Office.

1.	Evidence was presented to the tribunal that the second named respondent was not the party that made the decision whether or not to employ the claimant.  This decision was the prerogative of the first named respondent.  The second named respondent, on the instructions of the first named respondent and using their materials arranged tests and interviews from which the first named respondent could make a choice as to whether or not a candidate would be employed.

2.	The tribunal is satisfied that this was the situation of the second named respondent and accordingly holds that this respondent’s name should be removed from the proceedings and that it be dismissed as a respondent.

3.	The second named respondent asked the tribunal to order the claimant to pay costs in respect of this hearing.  The second named respondent had written to the claimant to point out the decision in an almost identical case involving both these respondents, where the Vice President had made an order to dismiss the Training and Employment Agency from proceedings before The Fair Employment Tribunal.  A copy of the decision of the Vice President had been sent to this claimant with a letter which informed the claimant that if the claimant did not agree to release the second named respondent from this case then the said respondent would make this present application and use the letter to the claimant in support of an application for costs.

4.	This tribunal holds that the claimant was unreasonable in not conceding that the matter of the second named respondent’s involvement in this case was a matter that had been decided in the earlier case of Craig –v- Short Brothers PLC and Bombardier Aerospace and The Training and Employment Agency (00373/99FET), a copy of which decision had been sent to the claimant.  Furthermore the claimant failed to attend this hearing to show a reason why the Craig case was different from his case.  In these circumstances I order the claimant to pay costs of £150.00 to the second named respondent under Regulation 12(1)(a) of the Fair Employment Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	28 October 2005, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: