FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REF:	00360/04 FET

CLAIMANT:			Gerald Thompson			

RESPONDENT(S):		1. Tim Lewis	 Recruitment Limited
				2. FG Wilson (Engineering) Limited

DECISION
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the claimant’s claim of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of his religious belief and/or political opinion against the second-named respondent be dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman:		Mr Palmer

Members:		Mr McCormick
			Dr. Cradden
Appearances:
The claimant did not appear, nor was he represented.

The second-named respondent was represented by Ms Toolan of the Engineering Employers’ Federation.
	
The first-named respondent
1.	The claimant and the first-named respondent reached an agreement, with the assistance of the Labour Relations Agency, in settlement of the claimant’s claims against the first-named respondent and on 23 May 2006 the Fair Employment Tribunal ordered that those claims be stayed until further order.

Amendment of title

2.	After hearing from Ms Toolan, on enquiry from the tribunal, that the second-named respondent’s name is FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd and not simply FG Wilson, the tribunal, by unanimous decision, ordered that the title to these proceedings be amended accordingly.

The claimant’s claim

3.	The claimant claimed that he had been unlawfully discriminated against by the second-named respondent on the grounds of his religious belief and/or political opinion.

Oral decision

4.	The tribunal delivered its decision orally on the day of the hearing (4th September 2006) but said that it would provide an expanded written decision as the claimant was neither present nor represented.

Non-attendance of claimant

5.	The tribunal sat at 10.04am on 4th September 2006 to determine the issues between the claimant and the second-named respondent. It was a hearing under Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure, which rules are referred to below. The claimant was not present when the tribunal sat and it adjourned without objection, until 11.00am. It adjourned in case the claimant had been delayed, for example by heavy traffic and also because the letter of 3 April 2006 (referred to below) informed the claimant that the case would be heard at Long Bridge House, Belfast, whereas the hearing had been allocated to Lower Donegall  Street, Belfast.

6.	At 10.30am a check was made with Long Bridge House to establish whether the claimant had arrived there. He had not. At 10.55am a further check was made with Long Bridge House and it was established he had not arrived there. The tribunal sat at 11.00am. The claimant was not present, nor was he represented.

Application by the second-named respondent

7.	Ms Toolan made three applications to the tribunal of behalf of the second-named respondent. One was an application under Rule 23 of the Fair Employment Rules of Procedure (the Rules of Procedure), which are contained in Schedule 1 to the Fair Employment Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005, that the claimant’s case be dismissed. The second was an application to strike out the claimant’s claim under Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure on the basis that the claimant had failed to comply with orders made at the Case Management Discussion held on 21 March 2006 (the Case Management Discussion). The third was an application for costs.

The application under Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure

8.	Paragraphs (5) and (6) of Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure provide as follows:

“ (5) If a party fails to attend or be represented (for the purpose of conducting the party’s case at the hearing under Rule 22) at the time and place fixed for such hearing, the tribunal may dismiss or dispose of the proceedings in the absence of that party or may adjourn the hearing to a later date. 

(6) If a tribunal wishes to dismiss or dispose of proceedings in the circumstances described in paragraph (5), it shall first consider any information in its possession which has been made available to it by the parties.”

9.	This case was fixed to be heard on 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th September 2006. At the Case Management Discussion, at which the claimant appeared in person, it was agreed that the hearing would take place on the dates mentioned, namely, the 4th to 8th September 2006, both dates inclusive. On 3rd April 2006 the tribunal office wrote to the claimant informing him that his claim would be heard at 10.00am on 4th-8th September 2006 at Long Bridge House. The address of Long Bridge House was set out. In the event the case was allocated to the tribunal’s premises in Lower Donegall Street, Belfast, a short distance from Long Bridge House. 

10.	The tribunal is satisfied that the claimant had agreed the dates of hearing at the Case Management Discussion and the tribunal is also satisfied that the letter of 3 April 2006 was delivered to his address (previous correspondence to the address had been received by him and the letter of 3 April had not been returned by the postal authorities).

11.	The claimant had not complied with orders made with his consent at the Case Management Discussion.

12.	In the letter of 3 April 2006, from the tribunal Office, it is stated as follows:

“You can either attend the hearing in person or submit written submissions (which must be copied to the other side) to the Secretary of the Tribunals at the address shown overleaf not less than 7 days before the date of the hearing for consideration by the tribunal at the hearing.

A party who cannot, or does not wish to, attend the hearing on the date shown above or otherwise feels unable to proceed on that date, should notify the Secretary to the Tribunals immediately at the address shown overleaf. The party should indicate whether he/she wishes the hearing to proceed in his/her absence or whether a postponement of the hearing is sought.

13.	No written submissions were made by the claimant, nor was there any indication by him that he could not, or did not wish, to attend the hearing. Further, there was nothing to indicate that he otherwise felt unable to proceed with the hearing or that he sought a postponement of the hearing. 

14.	The tribunal considered whether to telephone the claimant and decided, unanimously, that, in the circumstances, it would not do so. 

15.	It considered the relevant papers on the file, including the claimant’s application to the Fair Employment Tribunal and the second-named respondent’s Notice of Appearance and decided, in the light of what has previously been set out, to dismiss the claimant’s claim against the second-named respondent and so dismisses it.

The application under Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure

16.	This was an application to strike out the claimant’s claim for failure to comply with orders made at the Case Management Discussion. The tribunal considered that it need not rule on this issue in light of its decision to dismiss the claimant’s claim. 

The application for costs

17.	This application was made under Rule 12 of the 1994 Rules of Procedure which are contained in Schedule 1 to the Fair Employment Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004. This rule provides, inter alia, that where, in the opinion of the tribunal, a party has, in bringing the proceedings, acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or a party’s actions in bringing the proceedings have been misconceived, the tribunal shall consider making, and if it so decides, may make an order containing an award against that party in respect of costs incurred by another party.

18.	The ground of Ms Toolan’s application was that the claimant had acted unreasonably within Rule 12. She sought the sum of £750 in respect of costs.

19.	The tribunal ruled that the claimant should be given the opportunity to refute the allegation that he had acted unreasonably and should also be given the opportunity, if necessary, to comment on the amount claimed. 

20.	In the light of the tribunal’s decision that the claimant should be given the opportunity to be heard on matter of costs, Ms Toolan asked for 15 minutes to consult with her client which the tribunal granted. On her return Ms Toolan, with the tribunal’s consent, withdrew the application for costs.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	4 September 2006

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: