FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REF:	427/01FET

APPLICANT:	Malcolm Anthony Gatt	

RESPONDENT:	John Crane	

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the applicant’s application is within time.

Appearances:
The applicant was represented by Mr K Gibson, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Conway, Todd & Co., Solicitors. 
The respondent was represented by Mr I Carroll, Engineering Employers’ Federation. 

Summary Reasons
The tribunal found the following facts:-

1.	The applicant was employed by the respondent in various capacities from 1997 to 4 May 2001.

2.	In or around 12 March 2001, 26 March 2001 and 9 April 2001, the applicant received three threatening and intimidating letters.  These were directed to the applicant’s wife who is a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

3.	The applicant complained to the police and they subsequently investigated.

4.	The applicant gave notice of resignation to the respondent on 30 April 2001 and his last date of employment with the respondent was 4 May 2001.  

5.	The respondent contended that the applicant’s application to the tribunal was not made in time as the respondent’s case was that the last date of discrimination identified was 25 April 2001 and the applicant’s application had not been lodged with the tribunal until in or around 1 August 2001.

6.	The applicant contended that the last day of his employment was last date of the discrimination.  In the alternative, the applicant contended that time should only run in or around 16 May 2001, which was the approximate date upon which the police informed him that they had evidence tying the respondent to the three threatening letters.

7.	The applicable law is found in Article 46(1)(a) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 which says:-

“Subject to paragraph (5), the tribunal shall not consider a complaint under Article 38 unless it is brought before whichever is the earlier of –

(a)	the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the complainant first had knowledge, or might reasonably be expected first to have had knowledge, of the act complained of”;
 
In this case the applicant contended that although he had a suspicion that the letters may have emanated from his employer, he did not have actual knowledge of this until he was informed of the outcome of the investigation by the police in or around 16 May 2001.  The tribunal finds that 16 May 2001 was the date upon which the applicant might reasonably be expected first to have had knowledge that the act complained of was linked to his employer.  During the police investigation, the police found a portion of the third letter on the hard drive of one of the computers seized.

8.	Alternatively, if we are wrong in finding that the applicant has made his application within time, we consider in all the circumstances of the case that it will be just and equitable to extend time.  In so finding we have taken account of the applicant’s religion, the profession of his wife, the community within which they live and work specifically referred to in the text of the second letter of 26 March 2001.  Due to the physical nature of the threats made against the applicant, the tribunal considered that in all the circumstances of the case it was necessary for the applicant to be very sure of his ground before making an allegation of discrimination against his employer.  We do not in any way consider that the respondent is prejudiced by this finding given that if the application is deemed made out of time, then it is only thus by a matter of days.

 

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	26 January 2005, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: