Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions >> Jones v Belfast Education & Library Bo... [2010] NIFET 00208_09FET (09 August 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIFET/2010/00208_09FET.html
Cite as: [2010] NIFET 208_9FET, [2010] NIFET 00208_09FET
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
CASE REF: 208/09FET
7384/09
CLAIMANT: Vincent Jones
RESPONDENTS: 1. Belfast Education & Library Board
2. Gary Keenan
3. Linsey Close
4. Helen Lewis
5. Josephine Murray
6. Joanne Ramsey
PRE-HEARING REVIEW DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s application to amend these proceedings is refused.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mrs Ó Murray
Appearances:
The claimant appeared and was unrepresented.
The respondents were represented by Mr P O’Rawe, Education and Library Board Solicitor.
1. The purpose of the Pre-Hearing Review was to deal with the claimant’s application to amend the proceedings to include allegations of alleged discrimination in relation to incidents which occurred in 2006. The claimant outlined the alleged incidents in a letter to the tribunal office received on 28 May 2010.
2. At the PHR hearing, the claimant made application for the amendment of his proceedings to include further alleged incidents between 1994 and 2006. The claimant’s allegation was that all the incidents were connected to the allegations outlined in his 2009 claim as they showed that the whole system was against him.
3. In summary therefore the claimant’s application for amendment was that the following allegations be added to his claim:
(1) In 1994-1995, an allegation of discriminatory behaviour by a priest during an interview for a post at St Anne’s School.
(2) In 2004, during a temporary job at St Bride’s School an allegation of adverse comments made by a co-worker and an allegation that complaints to
Mr Keenan and another party went unheeded.
(3) In 2005, an allegation that the claimant failed to be appointed to a permanent post at St Michael’s Nursery.
(4) In 2004-2005, an allegation of discriminatory behaviour by Mr Keenan during an alleged incident at St John the Baptist School and an allegation that the claimant made a verbal complaint and nothing was done.
(5) In 2006, an allegation that the offer of a job at the Central Library was withdrawn following a doctor’s examination and report.
(6) At an unspecified time, an allegation that the claimant applied for a job at St Louise’s and was sent away by the interviewing panel which comprised a male and a female whose identities are unknown to the claimant.
(7) In an unspecified year, an allegation that a permanent job at Whiterock Library was offered and withdrawn following a doctor’s report.
4. I considered the evidence of the claimant and the submissions of the parties and reached the following conclusions.
5. The claimant gave no explanation for omitting any reference to the alleged incidents in his claim form. Several of the alleged incidents, if true, would constitute serious discriminatory behaviour and in these circumstances, it is most surprising that the claimant did not see fit to make any reference whatsoever to them in his claim form.
6. The claim currently before the tribunal relates firstly, to an interview for a post with the first respondent in 2009 and, secondly, relates to issues surrounding the health declaration form completed by the claimant in relation to that post. The issues in the case were agreed by the claimant at a CMD on 18 May 2010.
7. The claimant has failed to demonstrate that the seven allegations outlined above are linked in any way to the claim currently before the tribunal. I conclude therefore that the seven allegations constitute new claims amounting to new causes of action all of which have been raised by the claimant outside the requisite time limit for such claims.
8. As I am satisfied that the seven allegations have been raised outside the requisite time limits applicable for discrimination claims arising out of those allegations I must consider whether to extend time. I am not persuaded to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The only reason put forward by the claimant for failing to make claims within the relevant time limits was that he was “immature”. The claimant confirmed that over the relevant period he spoke to several people for advice and specifically that he took advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau and stated that he possibly called to the tribunal office for information over the period in question and he gave no explanation for failing to take matters further by lodging claims within the time limit.
9. The allegations now raised by way of this amendment application are between four and sixteen years outside the time limit. I have considered the potential hardship to both sides. In the circumstances, the hardship which would be caused to the respondent by allowing the late inclusion of such claims far outweighs any hardship to the claimant in being refused permission to include them as part of his claim.
10. It is for the claimant to persuade me to exercise my discretion to extend time in relation to the fresh claims and he has failed to do so. I therefore decline the claimant’s application for an extension of time in relation to each allegation.
11. In assessing the claimant’s application for amendment I have taken account of the EAT Guidance outlined in the Selkent case and have considered the interests of justice to both parties. Specifically I have considered and balanced the relative hardship which the claimant would suffer if he were barred from bringing the claims, and that which the respondent would suffer if it were faced with the increased cost and expense of defending a claim which expanded from a claim relating to discrete issues in a short period of time to a claim comprising numerous allegations over a fifteen-year period.
12. The claimant’s application for amendment of his claims is therefore refused.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 2 August 2010, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: