Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2285/04

APPLICANT: James Friel

RESPONDENTS: 1. Argos Central

2. Stephanie Eglen

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaint in view of the provisions of Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

Appearances:

The applicant was represented by Mr N Keery, Barrister-at-Law instructed by Rafferty and Boyle, Solicitors.

The respondents were represented by Ms A McKelvey, Barrister-at-Law instructed by Brabners Chaffe Street Solicitors (Liverpool).

This decision is given in summary form.

1. The applicant presented a complaint that during his employment with the respondent as a sales manager he had been subjected to harassment culminating in him terminating his employment with the respondent by letter received on 17 March 2004. The respondent alleged that the applicant had suffered no fundamental breach of his contractual terms and that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the applicant's complaint in light of the provisions of Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
2. The tribunal having considered all the evidence, both oral and documentary, found the following facts:-

(a) The effective date of termination of the applicant's employment with the respondent was 17 March 2004. The Office of the Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal had not received the applicant's complaint until 11 August 2004.

(b) The applicant was aware of the tribunal time limits and had consulted legal advisers in March 2004.

(c) The applicant commenced employment with a different employer in April 2004. He was under no illusion that the respondent no longer employed him even though they were investigating the grievance he lodged prior to terminating his employment.

3. Accordingly the essential issue for the tribunal was to determine whether the tribunal was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within three months from the effective date of termination, namely 18 June 2004. Then, if that question was determined in favour of the applicant, the tribunal was required to consider whether the complaint was presented within a reasonable further period.
4. Submissions were made on behalf of both parties.
5. The tribunal considered the legal authority of Palmer and Saunders –v- Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119, Riley –v- Tesco Stores Ltd and Greater London Citizens Advice Bureau Ltd [1980] IRLR 103 CA and London Underground Ltd –v- Noel [1999] IRLE 621 CA.
6. It is clear that the applicant knew of his right to bring a claim against the respondent from March 2004. It is clear that he delayed in submitting a claim. In the circumstances of this case, in particular the admissions by the applicant that he knew the time limits for submission of applications, the tribunal did not consider that the reasons given for delaying the submission of this claim were reasonable. The tribunal concluded it was reasonably feasible for the applicant to present the complaint prior to 18 June 2004. Accordingly the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claim and the complaint is dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 21 February 2005, Strabane.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: