Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions

 


FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REF: 00154/00FET

APPLICANT: Alexandra McCourt

RESPONDENT: The University of Ulster

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the applicant's complaint of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religious belief is well founded in part and that he was unlawfully discriminated by the respondent on the ground of religious belief. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant £1,778.00 compensation in respect of injury to feelings only.

Appearances:

The applicant was represented by Mr M Potter, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Maginness & Creighton, Solicitors.

The respondent was represented by Mr B Mulqueen, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Mr O McCullough, the respondent's Head of Human Resources.

1. The applicant, a Catholic, was employed by the respondent as a groundsman in the Jordanstown Campus from 31 November 1998 to 31 October 1999 when he resigned effective from 1 November 1999. The applicant worked alongside 5 other groundsmen who were Protestants. The acting chargehand and the Estates Officer were also Protestants. The Estates Manager and the Director of Physical Resources were Catholics.
2. The applicant's complaint to the Tribunal was that during the course of his employment the respondent unlawfully discriminated against him by reason of his religion or political opinion contrary to Article 19(1)(b)(iii) by subjecting him to a detriment in the following ways:-

(i) by subjecting him to sectarian harassment throughout his employment both on and off campus; and

(ii) by unjustifiably criticising his performance at three meetings on 1, 7 and 14 September 1999 and by unjustifiably extending his probationary period for three months from 14 September 1999 notwithstanding that it had expired on 29 May 1999.

3. The respondent did not dispute that if the alleged sectarian harassment was proved then that would amount to unlawful discrimination on the ground of religious belief. However the respondent denied that the alleged sectarian harassment had occurred. In addition the respondent denied that the applicant's performance had been criticised unjustifiably or that his probationary period had been extended for three months. The respondent claimed that a three-month review period had been established on 14 September 1999 to monitor the applicant's performance because of concerns which had arisen about his performance outside the probationary period.

Sectarian harassment

4. In relation to the applicant's allegation that he was subjected to sectarian harassment throughout his employment both on and off campus, there was a large degree of conflict on the evidence with both sides claiming that their version was credible and that the other side's version was not worthy of belief for various reasons. For example in relation to the first alleged incident of sectarian harassment, Mr Mulqueen pointed to the fact that the photographs, which had been taken of the two tables in the tea-room in October/November 2001, did not reveal any marks on the table where the applicant had alleged sectarian graffiti had been etched. Mr Mulqueen submitted that in view of:

(i) the photographs;

(ii) the respondent's evidence that the tables in the photographs were the same tables that had been in the tea-room during the applicant's employment;

(iii) the fact that the applicant did not suggest that the tables had been altered or changed;

(iv) the inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence;

doubt was thrown not only on the applicant's evidence in relation to the first alleged incident but on his overall credibility.

Mr Potter pointed to:

(i) the equivocal evidence of Mr Irvine, the acting chargehand in relation to marks which were visible on the table in the photograph at which the applicant was supposed to have sat;

(ii) the evidence of Mr Edgar, one of the groundsmen, who used the tea-room on a daily basis, that he had never seen the marks before;

(iii) the evidence of Mr Craig, the groundsman who cleaned the tables twice daily that he did not recognise the marks;

and invited the tribunal to conclude that the table in the photograph was not the same table at which the applicant had sat.

The tribunal noted that although the applicant indicated in cross-examination that he was not alleging that the respondent had altered or changed the table at which he sat, he could not say whether or not the table in the photograph was the same table.

Having considered and balanced the above matters, the tribunal concluded, particularly in view of Mr Craig's evidence, that it had real doubt as to whether the table in the photograph was the same table at which the applicant had sat.

5. The tribunal found other aspects of the respondent's evidence to be inconsistent, unsatisfactory and less than credible. However the tribunal also found aspects of the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent, unsatisfactory and less than credible
6. As the onus was on the applicant to prove his case, the Tribunal would not have been satisfied, on balance, that he had proved his case, in view of those deficiencies, if the applicant's evidence had been the only evidence adduced on his behalf before the Tribunal. However the Tribunal also had the evidence of Dr Potter, Consultant Psychiatrist, whom the Tribunal found to be an open and honest witness. Dr Potter interviewed the applicant on two occasions: 8 March 2000 and 3 October 2001. Dr Potter interviewed the applicant on 8 March 2000 solely in relation to a criminal injury claim he had made as a result of threats which the tribunal is satisfied had been made on his life in mid July 1999, while he was working as a part-time barman in the Jordanstown Inn. These threats were totally unrelated to his employment with the respondent. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant related some of the alleged acts of sectarian harassment, which he raised in evidence to the Tribunal, to Dr Potter, but not in the exaggerated way he described some of them at the hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant also told Dr Potter about the three meetings he had with the respondent which the respondent accepted did take place. The Tribunal is satisfied that when the applicant related those matters to Dr Potter on 8 March 2000 the time limit for bringing these proceedings had already expired and he had neither brought nor considered bringing them. He had not even mentioned the allegations to his solicitor. There was therefore no reason for the applicant to make the matters up as they did not advance his criminal injury claim. The Tribunal is satisfied that it was only when the applicant's solicitor read Dr Potter's report and saw the references to the applicant's alleged treatment at work, that she advised him that he may have grounds for issuing the present proceedings. The Tribunal is satisfied that, but for that advice, the applicant would not have brought the present proceedings. The Tribunal therefore concludes that it is more likely than not that the incidents the applicant related to Dr Potter had occurred. The fact that the applicant exaggerated the full nature and impact of some of those matters at the Tribunal hearing does not mean that they did not occur. However, in view of the inconsistencies and deficiencies in the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has proved that the incidents which he did not relate to Dr Potter occurred. For example, if the final alleged incident on 30 September 1999 had occurred, the tribunal would not only have expected to have heard corroborative evidence from the applicant's friend who was present but would have expected the applicant to have mentioned it to Dr Potter when telling her why he resigned.
7. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the applicant has proved on balance that the following occurred.

(i) On 18 December 1998 the applicant discovered the words "no more talk, just walk, UVF" written in ink (not etched in one inch letters as he claimed in cross-examination) on the part of the table in the groundsmen's tea-room at which he sat. The tribunal is satisfied that those words remained on the table throughout the remainder of the applicant's employment. The Tribunal is also satisfied that Mr Irvine, the acting chargehand groundsman who was in the tea-room on a daily basis and Mr Darragh, the Estates Officer, who was in the tea-room on a weekly basis knew or ought to have known the graffiti was there but took no steps to have it removed or investigated throughout the applicant's employment.

(ii) In February 1999, when the applicant was shifting rocks, Mr Edgar, one of the groundsmen, made the comment "no Pope, just a rope needed" in the applicant's presence.

(iii) In March 1999, when the SDLP councillor Briege Rogers was speaking on the radio about the murder of Rosemary Nelson, Solicitor, Mr Irvine, the acting chargehand, stated "you're next you Bastard" in the applicant's presence.

(iv) In March 1999, a red hand of Ulster badge was pinned beside the applicant's cup in the groundsmen's tea-room and remained there for a few months, not for the remainder of his employment as claimed. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Irvine and Mr Darragh knew or ought to have known of the existence of this badge but took no steps to have it removed or investigated.

(v) On an occasion in June 1999 Mr Darragh, the Estates Officer, described the colour of marigolds as "Drumcree orange" in the applicant's presence.

(vi) On another occasion in June 1999, Mr Darragh referred to the tape to be used for marking out a football pitch as "Garvaghy Road orange" in the applicant's presence.

8. The Tribunal is satisfied that the above comments, remarks and acts were sectarian in nature and that they amounted to sectarian harassment of the applicant which constituted unlawful discrimination on the ground of religious belief. In reaching that conclusion the Tribunal did not accept that Mr Darragh and some of the groundsmen were unaware of the applicant's religion. However in the absence of any evidence with regard to political opinion the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has established unlawful discrimination on that ground.

The meetings of the 1, 7 and 14 September 1999

9. In relation to the second aspect of the applicant's claim which was that his performance was unjustifiably criticised at three meetings on 1, 7 and 14 September 1999 and that his probationary period was unjustifiably extended because of his religion, there was again a large degree of conflict on the evidence. Having considered that evidence both oral and documentary together with the submissions, the Tribunal found the following relevant facts.
10. Due to an administrative error in the Human Resources Department, the applicant's preliminary and final probationary reports which should have been issued for completion to the Estates Office at the end of February and May 1999 respectively, were not issued until approximately mid August 1999. When Mr Darragh, the Estates Officer, received those reports for completion he took them to Mr Mahon, the Estates Manager, in mid August 1999 and told him they had arrived late. He also told Mr Mahon that concerns had arisen over the applicant's performance since the expiry of his probationary period at the end of May 1999.
11. Mr Mahon had never dealt with such a situation before and sought advice, as to how he should proceed, from Mrs Shaw of the Physical Resources Department and Mr McCullough, Head of Human Resources.
12. Mr McCullough advised Mr Mahon that as the applicant's performance had been satisfactory throughout the probationary period he should be confirmed in post. Mr McCullough also advised Mr Mahon that, in view of the concerns highlighted by Mr Darragh, the applicant should be informed orally and in writing that a review period of three months would be set up to monitor his performance and that if there were any further problems it could lead to disciplinary action. As a result of that advice Mr Mahon and Mr Darragh met with the applicant on two occasions on 1 and 14 September 1999.

The meeting on 1 September 1999

13. The Tribunal is satisfied that at the first meeting on 1 September 1999 Mr Mahon told the applicant that:-

(i) his probationary report forms had arrived late;

(ii) that they would be completed at a meeting on 14 September 1999;

(iii) that a trade union representative or colleague could attend that meeting;

(iv) that there were concerns about his performance which would be discussed at the meeting on 14 September 1999.

14. The tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was very surprised at the mention of concerns over his performance as no one had ever raised any concerns with him throughout his nine months of employment and he therefore asked why there were concerns. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Mahon gave the applicant two examples namely that he had driven his tractor too slowly and had taken too long to mark out a rugby pitch. Mr Mahon then told the applicant that his performance would be subject to a three month review. However the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Mahon made it clear to the applicant that he would be recommending that his employment be confirmed. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant left that meeting genuinely believing that his probationary period was being extended for three months. The applicant's belief in this regard was supported by the evidence of Mr Simpson, one of the respondent's harassment officers, who gave evidence on behalf of the respondent and to whom the applicant spoke following this meeting.

The meeting on 14 September 1999

15. The Tribunal is satisfied that at the meeting on 14 September 1999 the applicant was taken through the probationary report forms by Mr Mahon and was told that his attendance, time-keeping, standard of work and general behaviour had been satisfactory during the probationary period and that he would therefore be confirmed in post. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was also told that as concerns had arisen over his performance, since the expiry of the probationary period, a three month review period was being established during which time his performance would be monitored and that if any further concerns arose within that period it could lead to disciplinary action. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was told very generally, but not specifically, what those concerns were. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Mahon then wrote the following remarks "a review period has been established of three months to monitor performance" on the final probation report and deleted certain words from the certification section so that it read:-

"I certify that Alex McCourt has given satisfactory service and in my opinion should be offered employment on a permanent basis,"

before the applicant was given it to sign.

16. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant went into the meeting on 14 September 1999 still believing that his probationary period was being extended and unjustifiably so. The Tribunal is satisfied that because of that belief the applicant did not listen properly to what Mr Mahon was telling him. Nor did he read the probation forms before signing them. Had he done so, the Tribunal is satisfied that it should reasonably have been clear to him that he was going to be confirmed in post but that a three month review period was being established. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the applicant left that meeting still believing that his probationary period had been extended. The applicant's continued belief was supported by the evidence of Mr Dilsworth, a trade union official from UNISON, who gave evidence on behalf of the respondent and to whom the applicant spoke following this meeting.
17. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Mahon prepared a memo in relation to the establishment of the review period on 15 September 1999. However in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the respondent's evidence in this regard, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it was delivered to the applicant. On 22 September 1999, the applicant received a letter from Mr McCullough, Head of Human Resources, informing him that he had been confirmed in post. The tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was genuinely mystified by this in view of his understanding of the meetings and the fact that he did not receive the memo.
18. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Mahon imposed a three-month review period on the advice of Mr McCullough, because of the concerns raised by Mr Darragh and that the applicant's religion was not a factor in either Mr McCullough's advice or Mr Mahon's action. The Tribunal did not reach the same conclusion in relation to Mr Darragh's actions. For the reasons which appear below the tribunal concluded that the concerns raised by Mr Darragh were either disingenuous or unjustified.

REASONS

19. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Irvine, the acting chargehand groundsman, and Mr Darragh, the Estates Officer, had absolutely no concerns about any aspect of the applicant's performance throughout his probationary period which lasted from 31 November 1998 to 29 May 1999.
20. According to Mr Darragh's evidence concerns about the applicant's performance arose almost as soon as the applicant's probationary period ended until mid August 1999 or to be more precise from June 1999 to mid-July 1999 and from 5 to 13 August 1999 (the applicant was on sick leave from mid July to 5 August 1999 and on annual leave from 13 to 21 August 1999). Mr Darragh had great difficulty remembering what those concerns were because in his own words they were "so menial" and because they did not amount to anything for which the applicant would have been disciplined. According to Mr Mahon's evidence and his memo of 15 September 1999, Mr Darragh raised concerns about three aspects of the applicant's work:

(1) failing to accept instructions from Mr Irvine, the acting chargehand;

(2) failing to complete tasks within acceptable time limits; and

(3) failing to follow procedures with regard to taking annual leave.

The tribunal considered those concerns as follows:

Failing to accept instructions from his chargehand

21. This concern was really an alleged failure to carry out an instruction and allegedly arose from an incident in which the applicant was seen by Mr Irvine sitting on his lawnmower under the shade of a tree on a warm summer's day when he should have been cutting grass.

If this incident had actually occurred the tribunal would have expected:

(i) the incident to have been put to the applicant in cross-examination;

(ii) Mr Irvine to have spoken to the applicant at the time if only to get the job finished and particularly in view of Mr Mahon's evidence that Mr Irvine, as the acting chargehand groundsman, would have been expected to try to resolve the matter himself before referring it to Mr Darragh;

(iii) Mr Darragh to have spoken to the applicant at the time, as he did on 7 September 1999, when Mr Irvine reported a different incident to him.

In view of the above matters the Tribunal is not satisfied that this incident actually occurred.

Failing to complete tasks within acceptable time limits

22. This concern appears to have amounted to the applicant:

(1) driving his tractor too slowly on two occasions;

(2) taking too long or forgetting to get a hose on one occasion;

(3) taking too long to mark out a rugby pitch on one occasion; and

(4) taking longer than the other groundsmen to weed and plant.

Driving too Slowly

23. Although Mr Irvine the acting chargehand groundsman, who was most closely involved with the applicant, had never seen the applicant driving his tractor too slowly, Mr Darragh raised this concern with Mr Mahon because on two occasions he had been able to walk past the applicant when he was driving his tractor while towing a trailer. Mr Darragh raised this concern with Mr Mahon notwithstanding:

(i) his understanding that the speed limit at the particular location was five miles per hour;

(ii) that his concern was not such that he felt the need to raise it with the applicant on either occasion;

(iii) that he did not feel the need to mention it to Mr Irvine.

In those circumstances the tribunal concluded that Mr Darragh's concern was unjustified.

The hose incident

24. Mr Darragh raised this concern to Mr Mahon notwithstanding his evidence that this really only amounted to lack of attention to detail. In those circumstances the tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Darragh's concern was justified.

Taking too long to mark out a rugby pitch

25. The Tribunal is satisfied that this incident involved not only the applicant but Mr Craig, a Protestant groundsman. The Tribunal is also satisfied that had this matter been raised with the applicant at the time, he could have given a perfectly satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal is further satisfied that not only was this concern passed on to Mr Mahon, without the applicant having been given the opportunity to explain, but Mr Mahon was not informed that Mr Craig was also involved.

Taking longer than the other groundsmen to weed and plant

26. According to Mr Mahon's evidence, Mr Darragh reported to him that the applicant had taken so long to weed and plant that he had to send other groundsmen to finish the applicant's work. If this concern had been genuine, it was certainly not a minor or "menial" problem as it put an extra burden on the other groundsmen and the Tribunal would therefore have expected:

(i) it to have been put to the applicant in cross-examination;

(ii) Mr Darragh to have remembered it;

(iii) Mr Irvine, who handed out the work and ensured that the work was done, to have been aware of it; and

(iv) the other groundsmen upon whom the extra burden would have been placed, to have referred to it in their evidence.

In view of the above matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Darragh's concern was genuine.

The applicant's failure to follow procedures with regard to taking annual leave

27. It was clear that the applicant had followed the correct procedure for taking leave during his probationary period. According to Mr Mahon, Mr Darragh reported to him in mid August 1999 that between June and mid-August 1999, the applicant had rung in on one or more mornings (there was no evidence as to how many) to indicate that he had decided to take that day as leave. Mr Mahon told the Tribunal that he regarded this as perhaps the most serious matter, because it was completely unacceptable for a member of staff to behave in this manner, as it put an unfair burden on the other groundsmen. The Tribunal has no doubt that if this did happen then it was a more serious matter. In those circumstances the Tribunal was surprised that neither Mr Darragh, Mr Irvine nor any of the other groundsmen made any mention of this in their evidence. The Tribunal was also surprised that no evidence was adduced to establish the actual leave days taken at short notice during this relatively short period.

In view of the above matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Darragh's concern was genuine.

28. The tribunal is mindful that concerns which may appear trivial or unjustifiable, if viewed individually, can become a lot more serious when viewed cumulatively. However in view of the tribunal's findings that the majority of the concerns raised by Mr Darragh were disingenuous, the tribunal is not satisfied that that situation arises in this case.
29. In view of the tribunal's findings that:

(i) Mr Darragh was aware or ought to have been aware of the sectarian graffiti on the table at which the applicant sat;

(ii) Mr Darragh took no steps to have it removed or investigated during the applicant's employment;

(iii) Mr Darragh was aware or ought to have been aware of the UVF badge but took no steps to have it removed or investigated;

(iv) Mr Darragh described marigolds as 'Drumcree orange' and tape as 'Garvaghy Road orange', in the applicant's presence, in June 1999;

(v) the majority of the concerns raised by Mr Darragh were disingenuous;

(vi) the remainder were unjustified;

(vii) Mr Darragh did not report Mr Craig, a Protestant groundsman's joint involvement in relation to the delay in marking out a rugby pitch, to Mr Mahon when reporting the applicant's involvement;

the tribunal concludes that Mr Darragh subjected the applicant to a further detriment because of his religion when he raised those concerns with Mr Mahon which led to the establishment of a three month review period, which could in turn have led to disciplinary action being taken against the applicant.

The meeting of 7 September 1999

30. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was reading a newspaper on the morning of 7 September 1999, when Mr Irvine was issuing the daily instructions and did not hear what Mr Irvine told him to do. The Tribunal is satisfied that when Mr Irvine heard the applicant asking the other groundsmen what he had been instructed to do he became annoyed. Notwithstanding:

(i) Mr Irvine's evidence that this was the first occasion on which the applicant had failed to accept instructions from him;

(ii) Mr Irvine's evidence that he gave the groundsmen, the remainder of whom were all Protestants, the benefit of the doubt when they did something wrong during his acting-up period; and

(iii) Mr Mahon's evidence that Mr Irvine was expected to try to resolve matters himself before referring them to Mr Darragh;

Mr Irvine immediately reported the matter to Mr Darragh. In those circumstances, although the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was at fault, the Tribunal is also satisfied that Mr Irvine by failing to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt on the first occasion he failed to accept instructions from him, treated the applicant less favourably than he would have treated the other groundsmen, who were all Protestant, during this period. The Tribunal therefore concludes that Mr Irvine unlawfully discriminated against the applicant in relation to this incident on the ground of his religion. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Darragh unlawfully discriminated against the applicant on this occasion. That is because the Tribunal is satisfied that once the matter was reported to him, Mr Darragh was obliged to investigate it and was entitled to conclude on this occasion that the applicant had been at fault.

THE RESPONDENT'S DEFENCE

31. Mr Mulqueen submitted that if the Tribunal found that the applicant had been unlawfully discriminated against by reason of his religious belief and/or political opinion, then although the respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees during the course of their employment, the respondent had a defence under Article 36(4) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 in view of the respondent's harassment policy and procedures and the training provided to all employees in relation to it.
32. Mr Potter submitted that the respondent could not rely on the defence provided by Article 36(4) where, as in this case, the chargehand and the Estates Officer had not only failed to protect the applicant from unlawful discriminatory treatment but had also subjected him to unlawful discriminatory treatment themselves. That is because in those circumstances primary liability attaches to the respondent for their actions. Alternatively although the respondent did have an harassment policy and procedure in place and did provide some training, it was clear from the facts of this case that the training was clearly ineffective and did not therefore amount to a valid defence.
33. Mr Mulqueen accepted, in reply, that if the Tribunal was satisfied that a UVF badge had been pinned beside the applicant's cup and if sectarian graffiti had been written on the table and that Mr Irvine and Mr Darragh had done nothing about it, then it would be difficult for the respondent to sustain its defence.
34. Under Article 36(4), the onus is on the respondent to establish that it has taken "such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee from doing that act or from doing in the course of his employment acts of the same description".
35. Although the respondent:

(i) did have equal opportunities and harassment policies and procedures in place;

(ii) provided copies to all employees;

(iii) gave all employees training in relation to them;

the evidence shows that, to be effective, the training for groundsmen would need to be reinforced more regularly.

The Tribunal considers that, in addition to that, a reasonable employer who knew or ought to have known, through Mr Irvine and Mr Darragh, that there was sectarian graffiti in the tea-room would have ensured:

(i) that it was removed;

(ii) that it was investigated;

(iii) that the groundsmen were reminded of its policies.

In those circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that the respondent has established a defence under Article 36(4).

REMEDY

36. The applicant told the tribunal that he resigned following an incident of sectarian harassment by Mr Edgar in the Jordanstown Inn on 30 October 1999. Mr Edgar told the Tribunal that the applicant had told him that he was leaving because the Child Support Agency were looking for maintenance payments from him. The Tribunal found Mr Edgar to be such an unsatisfactory witness that it could not rely on his evidence in this regard. Notwithstanding that, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had established that the incident involving Mr Edgar on 30 October 1999 had taken place. The tribunal was also conscious that the applicant had given the tribunal and Dr Potter two different explanations as to why he had left a previous job. While he told the tribunal that he left because of the way he had been treated, he told Dr Potter it was because of maintenance payments. The tribunal is also satisfied that the applicant was suffering from post traumatic anxiety at this stage following the threats to his life in July 1999 in relation to his employment at the Jordanstown Inn. In those circumstances, while the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has established that he was unlawfully discriminated against by the respondent on the ground of his religious belief, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on balance that the applicant resigned because of that treatment. The Tribunal therefore concludes that damages should be restricted to injury to feelings. In assessing the appropriate level of damages the tribunal took into account the following:

(i) The nature and duration of the unlawful conduct;

(ii) Dr Potter's evidence that the threats to the applicant's life, for which the respondent is not responsible, caused the post traumatic anxiety from which the applicant has and continues to suffer;

(iii) Dr Potter's evidence that the unlawful discriminatory treatment, for which the respondent is responsible, exacerbated but did not cause the post traumatic anxiety;

(iv) the fact that the applicant was awarded £2,500, by agreement, for the post traumatic stress anxiety caused by the threats to his life.

Taking all those matters into account the tribunal orders the respondent to pay the applicant £1,500 for the injury to his feelings.

37. The Tribunal is satisfied that interest should be added to the compensation for injury to feelings in accordance with the Fair Employment Tribunal (Remedies) Order (Northern Ireland) 1995. The amount of interest is £278.00 based on 8% per annum, payable in respect of the period 18 December 1999 (the beginning of the discrimination) to 12 April 2002 (the date of calculation).
38. This is a relevant decision under the Fair Employment Tribunal (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1992.

____________________________________

Date and place of hearing: 10-14 December 2001, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: 15 April 2002