Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions

FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

 

 

CASE REFS:  00104/09FET & 00060/09

 

 

CLAIMANT:                      Lynn McGrath

 

 

RESPONDENT:                Northstone (NI) Limited

 

 

DECISION

 

 

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was not unlawfully discriminated against and was not unfairly selected for redundancy by the respondent. The claims are dismissed.

 

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

 

Chairman:              Mrs Watson

 

Panel Members:     Ms McFarline

Mr Jones

 

 

Appearances:

 

The claimant was represented by Mr Eakin, Trade Union Official.

 

The respondent was represented by Mr Kennedy B.L. instructed by McGrigors, Solicitors.

 

 

Issues for determination

 

(a)      Was the claimant unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of his   religion by the respondent when he was not permitted to re-sit a test while another worker of a different religion was afforded that opportunity?

 

(b)      Was the selection for redundancy of the claimant unfair?

 

Summary Reasons

 

 1.      At the end of the hearing the chairman gave the decision orally. The reasons for the decision were also given orally under Rule 24 (2) of The Fair Employment Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005. The following is a summary of the said decision and reasons.

 

 2.      The claimant was made redundant from his employment with the respondent as a Skilled Labourer with effect from 30 October 2008. The claimant lodged proceedings with the tribunal claiming that he had been unfairly selected for redundancy and that a colleague who was of a different perceived religious affiliation had been treated more favourably than the claimant in that he had been allowed to re-sit a test while the claimant had not.

 

 3.      Oral and documentary evidence was heard and considered by the tribunal over 4 days. The tribunal were satisfied that the selection for redundancy was conducted fairly. The procedures used by the respondent were in accordance with its Redundancy Policy which had been drafted with the assistance of the Labour Relations Agency in 2005. Selection was based on scoring of criteria set out in the Redundancy Policy and carried out by managers who were familiar with the skills and attributes of the workforce. The scoring of the workers for selection in this redundancy process had been quite close. The managers who gave evidence all spoke well of the claimant and expressed regret that it had been necessary to make any of the workforce redundant.

 

 4.      In relation to the claim of religious discrimination, the tribunal was satisfied that the reason for allowing the two candidates, one of whom was of a different religious affiliation to the claimant, to re-sit the test, was in accordance with the rules of the awarding organisation and not on grounds of religion.

 

 5.      On behalf of the respondent, Mr Kennedy applied for an Order for costs against the claimant in relation to the cost to the respondent of defending the religious discrimination element of the claim. The application was refused as the defence of the discrimination claim did not add to the hearing time of the defence of the claim of unfair dismissal.

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman:

 

 

Date and place of hearing:  14, 15, 16 and 17 December 2009, Belfast.

 

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: