Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 


Farrell v Driver & Vehicle Testing Agency (TUA Unfair treatment Trade Union Activities) [2002] NIIT 00349_98 (18 December 2002)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 00349/98 TUA

APPLICANT: John Farrell

RESPONDENT: Driver & Vehicle Testing Agency

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the Tribunals that the applicant's claims are dismissed.

Appearances:

The applicant was represented by himself.

The respondent was represented by Mr N Kelly, Departmental Solicitor.

1. These reasons are given in summary form.
2. The applicant claimed unfair/unequal treatment due to trade union activities. The respondent denied that it took action short of dismissal against the applicant on grounds related to union membership or activities.
3. A panel member suffered an injury and was unable to attend on Day 2 of the hearing. Both parties agreed to proceed to conclusion with a two-man panel.
4. The Tribunal made the following findings:-

(a) The applicant was employed from March 1986 to date as a vehicle/driving examiner.

(b) The applicant's claim related to 4 matters:-

(i) his failure to wear safety glasses on 23 October 1997;

(ii) unfavourable comments about the applicant in an audit report on the Downpatrick Centre of 8 October 1996;

(iii) the prevention of the applicant's attendance at a pay and grading meeting on 31 October 1997; and

(iv) the implementation of the respondent's late arrival policy for persons seeking vehicle or driving tests.

(c) The applicant admitted he was not wearing safety glasses on 23 October 1997 which is against the respondent's policy and a disciplinary matter. The Tribunal is not persuaded that there were material differences between the treatment of the applicant and two other employees, Mr Cull and Mr Lennon. It accepts the explanations of the differences advanced by the respondent.

The Tribunal is not persuaded that the differences admitted by the respondent manifested unfair/unequal treatment of the applicant.

(d) The respondent's use of the informal oral warning procedure in Article 1080 of its disciplinary code was flexible and benefited all employees by keeping them out of the more formal and more serious procedure.

(e) The audit report of 8 October 1996 made unfavourable comments about the applicant. It is understandable that the applicant is not pleased with those comments. However the applicant did not suffer any unfair/unequal treatment as a result of those comments.

(f) The applicant was only prevented from going to 1 pay and grading meeting out of 10. The Tribunal accepts this was for operational reasons and was not an attempt to treat the applicant unfairly or unequally.

(g) The Tribunal is satisfied that the late arrival policy was not being implemented at the Newtownards Centre and that Mr Hassin's contact with the applicant was a legitimate contact to remind him of the policy. Again arising from this contact the applicant did not suffer any unfair/unequal treatment.

(h) The only action against the applicant taken by the respondent was the administering of an informal oral warning for not wearing safety glasses. This action was a legitimate action grounded in the respondent's disciplinary code.

(i) The Tribunal is not persuaded that an encounter between the applicant and Mr Hassin, the respondent's Operations Director, in 1990 following an industrial dispute caused Mr Hassin to treat the applicant unfairly or unequally or to his detriment 6 years later.

(j) The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was prevented or deterred from or penalised for his engagement in trade union activities.

(k) Accordingly the Tribunal dismisses the applicant's claims.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 13 August, 30 September and 8 October 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: