Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions

FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

 

CASE REFS: 108/11 FET

2066/11

                                                                                                                     

 

 

CLAIMANT:                       Siobhan McAteer  

 

 

RESPONDENT:                 Southern Health and Social Care Trust

 

 

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

 

 

(A)               In this Decision, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B and 6 are as defined below. 

 

(B)     Claims 1, 2 and 3 are dismissed because they were not presented within the relevant time limit.  (Each such claim was not presented within the relevant primary time limit and it is not just and equitable for a tribunal to consider that claim despite the fact that it is out of time). 

 

(C)     Claim 4A has not been brought within the relevant primary time limit. However, the claim has nevertheless been presented within the specified statutory time limit, because it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case, for an industrial tribunal to consider this claim even if it is out of time.

 

(D)     If and to the extent that Claim 4B has been brought outside the relevant primary time limit, it has nevertheless been presented within the specified statutory time limit because it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case, for an industrial tribunal to consider this claim even if it is out of time.

 

(E)     Claim 5A is dismissed because it has not been presented within either of the relevant time limits and it is not just and equitable for each relevant tribunal to consider that claim despite the fact that it is out of time. 

 

(F)      The claimant’s victimisation claim, in respect of the subject-matter of Claim 6, is struck out, because it has no reasonable prospect of success. 

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone):           Mr P Buggy 

 

Appearances:

 

The claimant was represented by Mr Dermot Rafferty.

 

The respondent was represented by Mr C Hamill, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Directorate of Legal Services of Business Services Organisation.

 

 

REASONS

 

1.       I announced my decision at the end of the hearing.  At the same time, I gave oral reasons for that decision.  Accordingly, what follows consist mainly of information which is only of contextual significance. 

 

2.       During the course of this hearing, the claimant identified those claims, and only those claims, which she now intends to pursue.  All her other claims have been abandoned. 

 

3.       The various other claims were abandoned under the clear understanding that abandonment of any claim does not imply that the relevant claim was not well-founded.  Instead, the abandonment of a particular claim may well be the result of pragmatic considerations (such as the desirability of focusing upon key issues, and the desirability of keeping the duration of the main hearing within reasonable bounds). 

 

4.       The remaining claims are listed below. 

 

5.       The claims which remained prior to the determination of this pre-hearing review were as set out below. 

 

7.       In the context of each claim, I have identified the following: (1) the acts/omission complained of and (2) the claimant’s cause or causes, of action. 

 

8.       The political discrimination complained of, in the context of the following claims, is discrimination by reason of the claimant’s association with campaigns in relation to The Disappeared. 

 

9.       Claim 1:  The claimant’s grievances during the period September 2009-September 2010 were not adequately addressed.  (That was political discrimination). 

 

10.     Claim 2:  The claimant’s request for annual leave in November 2009 was refused.  That was political discrimination. 

 

11.     Claim 3:  The claimant’s complaints/grievances, in relation to Mr Gavin, in June, April and September 2010, were not adequately addressed.  That was sex discrimination.

 

12.     Claim 4A:  The current disciplinary proceedings against the claimant ought not to have been instigated.  That is sex discrimination. 

 

13.     Claim 4B:  The current disciplinary proceedings against the claimant ought not to have been continued.  That is sex discrimination. 

 

14.     Claim 5A:  The claimant’s grievances in October, November and December 2010 were not adequately addressed.  That is political discrimination.  That is also sex discrimination. 

 

15.     Claim 5B:  The claimant’s grievance of August 2011 was not adequately addressed.  That is political opinion discrimination.  That is also sex discrimination. 

 

16.     Claim 6:  The claimant’s request for a phased return to work in June 2011 was refused.  That is sex discrimination. That is also victimisation discrimination (contrary to the Sex Discrimination Order). 

 

17.           As a result of what was agreed between the parties, and as a result of the determinations which I made during the course of this pre-hearing review, the current position is as follows:

 

Claim 1 has been dismissed because it is out of time.

 

Claim 2 has been dismissed because it is out of time.

 

Claim 3 has been dismissed because it is out of time.

 

Claim 4A was made in time.

 

Claim 4B was made in time.

 

Claim 5A has been dismissed because it is out of time.

 

Claim 5B was made in time (The parties agreed this).

 

Claim 6 was made in time. (The parties agreed this)

 

The victimisation aspect of Claim 6 has been dismissed.

 

The sex discrimination aspect of Claim 6 has not been dismissed.

 

18.     This pre-hearing review related only to cases 108/11 FET and 2066/11

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman:

 

 

Date and place of hearing:  17 August 2012, Belfast.       

 

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: