Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 


McGinley v Ramesh Rana Andras House Ltd (Sex Discrimination/Jurisdiction) [2002] NIIT 2291_01 (10 January 2002)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2291/01

APPLICANT: Lisa McGinley

RESPONDENTS 1. Ramesh Rana

2. Andras House Limited

DECISION

Summary Reasons:

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is as follows;

1. That the complaint was not presented within the time specified by Article 76(1) of the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976 ["the 1976 Order"], and that
2. The Tribunal is not satisfied in all the circumstances of this case that it would be just and equitable to extend time for presentation of the complaint to 6 June 2001, pursuant to Article 76(5) of the 1976 Order.

Appearances:

The Applicant appeared in person

Ms M Anderson, Peninsula Business Services Ltd, for the Respondents

The Tribunal found the following facts:

3. By her Originating Application, which was presented to the Tribunal on 6 June 2001, the Applicant complained of sex discrimination and a breach of the parental leave regulations. The Applicant submitted to the Tribunal that she advised the first Respondent of her pregnancy on 26 September 2000, and that she was suspended on 14 November 2000 for a reason purporting to be related to gross misconduct, and that she was dismissed for this reason on 20 November 2000. She appealed this decision. The appeal was unsuccessful, and she learned this fact on 8 March 2001. She stated that she had been hospitalised on 31 January 2001 for a couple of days, owing to hypertension, and thereafter ordered to have complete bed rest for a week. Thereafter, she was in hospital again for a day in February 2001, and further bed rest was ordered. The Applicant understood time started to run when the outcome of the appeal against her dismissal was publicised. Her daughter was born on 14 March 2001. She submitted that she was ignorant of the three-month time limit for lodgement of an application, and did not seek any advice on this point. After the birth of her daughter, she submitted she was too pre-occupied with her baby to lodge a complaint until 6 June 2001.
4. The Respondent argued that ignorance of the time limits was not a reason sufficient to persuade the Tribunal to exercise its discretion under Article 76(5) of the 1976 Order. Pursuant to Palmer & Saunders –v- Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119, that the fact that an internal appeal was pending did not delay the commencement of the statutory three month time limit for presentation of a complaint. Finally, in respect of the Applicant's pregnancy-related illnesses, the Respondent cited Shultz v. Esso Petroleum [1999] IRLR 488.

THE PRELIMINARY DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

5. Having considered these submissions, and all the statute and case law cited, the Tribunal makes the following decision;

(i) That, pursuant to Article 76(1) of the 1976 Order, the three-month time limit in this case started to run on 20 November 2000, and ceased on 20 February 2001. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there was any impediment that prevented the Applicant lodging a complaint from 20 November up until 31 January 2001, or from or about 10 February – 20 February 2001.

(ii) The Tribunal is not satisfied that it has heard from the Applicant there were grounds sufficiently compelling to satisfy it that it would be just and equitable to extend time from 20 February to 6 June 2001.

(iii) The Tribunal therefore determines the complaint out of time, and dismisses it for that reason.

(iv) No further or other Order is made.

Chairman:

Date and Place of Hearing: 18 October 2001, Belfast

Date Decision Recorded in Register

And Issued to the Parties: 10 January 2002