Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2527/04 & Others

(See attached List)

CLAIMANTS: Crawford & Others

(See Attached List)

RESPONDENTS: 1 Carpets International UK Ltd

2 Price Waterhouse Coopers

DECISION ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE

The decision of the tribunal is that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claimants' claims as they have been presented outside the three-month time-limit stipulated in Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and in Article 7 of the Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order (Northern Ireland) 1994. The claimants' claims are therefore dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Mrs O Murray

Appearances:

The claimants did not attend and were not represented.

The first-named respondent did not attend and was not represented

The second-named respondent was represented by Mr M Wilson of Elliott Duffy Garrett Solicitors.

1. The claimants' claims were for:-

(i) Unfair dismissal under Article 126 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

(ii) Failure to consult on redundancy under Article 216 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

(iii) Breach of contract under Article 3 of the Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order (Northern Ireland) 1994.

2. The issues for the tribunal to determine were as follows:-

(a) Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claimants' claims in view of the provisions of Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 regarding the time-limit for presenting the claims.

(b) Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claimants' claims in view of the provisions of Article 7 of the Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order (Northern Ireland) 1994 regarding the time limit for presenting a claim and

(c) The identity of the claimants' employer.

3. Before reaching its decision the tribunal considered the Originating Application forms lodged by the claimants.
4. The claimants did not attend, were not represented and no communication had been received from any of them as to the reasons for their non-attendance. The second-named respondent's representative advised that he had received no communication whatsoever from the claimants in relation to their claims nor in relation to the hearing.
5. The effective date of termination on the face of the papers lodged by the claimants fell on one of three dates namely 10 October 2003, 17 October 2003 or 14 November 2003. The Originating Applications were lodged on one of two dates namely 7 September 2004 or 22 September 2004. All of the applications were therefore presented to the tribunal well outside the requisite three-month time limit.
6. There was nothing on the papers to give any indication as to why it was not reasonably practicable for any of the claimants to lodge their Originating Applications within the requisite time limit, except that Mr McGrath did allude to a reason namely that he was not in a trade union and did not know that a tribunal hearing had previously taken place. The tribunal does not regard the latter explanation as sufficient to amount to an explanation for late lodgements of the claim nor is it sufficient to persuade the tribunal to extend time.
7. As either no reasons, or insufficiently cogent reasons, have been given for late presentation of the claims, the tribunal finds that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claimants' claims and therefore dismisses them in their entirety.
8. In view of the tribunal's findings on jurisdiction, the tribunal does not consider it necessary to determine the issue of the identity of the claimants' employer.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 7 September 2005, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: