Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions

 


FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REF: 00180/00FET

00786/00

APPLICANT: Valerie Irwin

RESPONDENT: Armagh and Dungannon Health and

Social Services Trust

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that it does not consider that, in all the circumstances of this case, it would be just and equitable to extend the time limit for the presentation of the applicant's complaints. Accordingly, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider them and they are hereby dismissed.

Appearances:

The applicant was represented by Mr Wolfe, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Campbell, Fitzpatrick & Co, Solicitors.

The respondent was represented by Mr Law, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Central Services Agency.

1. The following facts were not disputed. The applicant lodged Originating Applications with the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal on 17^th April 2000. The applications contained allegations of unlawful discrimination on the ground of religion and sex. The act of discrimination giving rise to the allegations took place on 13^th May 1999 and the complaints were out of time under the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. The applicant applied to the tribunal to exercise its discretion to extend the time limits in her favour on the ground that, in all the circumstances of the case, it would be just and equitable to do so.
2. This case was opened on the basis that the applicant had no knowledge of statutory time limits. It was further outlined that the reason for the delay in issuing proceedings was because the applicant was awaiting the outcome of an internal grievance and that this was not fully communicated to her until March 2000. However, under cross-examination the applicant stated, that from in or about the date of the act of discrimination, she had been aware of her right to seek legal redress before a tribunal for unlawful discrimination. She also admitted to being aware of the existence of time limits for taking those proceedings. She denied knowing precisely how long the time limits were. The tribunal was satisfied from the applicant's evidence that she was aware of the existence and purpose of the statutory equality bodies, she had access to legal advice and she had access to her trade union, the Royal College of Nursing. The tribunal was also satisfied that the applicant had access to and read training manuals on equality as early as June 1999 and she had had equality training. In the circumstances the tribunal is satisfied that the applicant, if she did not know the precise time limit for presenting her complaints, had the means of finding out about them The applicant gave no explanation for not having done so.
3. The tribunal was satisfied from the applicant's evidence that, knowing she could lodge complaints of unlawful discrimination, she made a conscious decision to pursue an informal internal grievance instead. She deliberately did not tell either her R.C.N. representative or her solicitor that she believed she had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of religion or gender, nor did she allege any such discrimination in her internal grievance. Further, the tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was aware that that internal procedure had been finalised when she received a letter of apology from the alleged discriminator, Dr Cassidy, on 8^th December 1999. In her own words she considered this letter to be an insult and she determined to take legal action to achieve truth and justice. However, she did not act on Dr Cassidy's letter until after Christmas 1999 and eventually in February 2000 she informed her solicitor, for the first time, that she felt that she had been unlawfully discriminated on the grounds of religion and gender.
4. From the foregoing the tribunal is satisfied that the applicant, knowing about her entitlement to pursue her complaints before the tribunals and knowing there were time limits for doing so, decided to put them on hold. She chose not to pursue them and she also chose not to impart instructions to her solicitor or her trade union representative, which would have enabled them to do so. Further, the applicant made no attempt to find out about the relevant time limits and gave no explanation for not doing so. Nor did she explain the delay between receiving Dr Cassidy's letter on 8^th December and consulting her solicitor on 29^th February 2000. Finally, if the applicant is correct in saying that she made her solicitor aware of her allegations of unlawful discrimination on 29^th February 2000, no explanation is before this tribunal as to why the Originating Applications were not lodged until 17^th April, 2000 i.e. some seven weeks later. In all the circumstances of this case the tribunal does not consider that it would be just and equitable to extend the time limit for the following reasons. Even if the applicant was anxious to pursue an internal grievance she ought to have taken steps to protect her statutory rights because, at all material times, she was aware of them and she was aware that there were some time restrictions regarding them. Further, the tribunal considers that it was incumbent on the applicant to seek advice regarding her allegations of unlawful discrimination at the earliest possible time and it was not open to her to put such matters on hold in the manner in which she did in this case. Finally, the tribunal does not consider that it is just and equitable to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit when it has not received any explanation for the delays occurring subsequent to knowing the outcome of the grievance. The tribunal refers, in particular, to the delay between 8^th December 1999 and 29t^h February 2000 and the delay between 29^th February 2000 and 17^th April 2000.

Accordingly the tribunal refuses to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant and consequently does not have jurisdiction to consider this case which is hereby dismissed.

____________________________________

Date and place of hearing: 6 December 2001, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: 11 January 2002