Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: PAR 39/05

CLAIMANT: Geoffrey Wilson

RESPONDENTS 1. MMT Group

2. Stephen Magee

3. Catherine Ward

DECISION

The tribunal confirms the decision of 17 May 2005 not to accept part of the claimant's claim, and refuses the application for a review.

1. The claimant, Mr Wilson, by a claim form presented to the Office of the Tribunals, on 28 April 2005, made the following allegations against the respondents:-

(i) victimisation for asserting a statutory right;

(ii) breach of the implied contractual duty of mutual trust and confidence;

(iii) failure to provide statutory grievance/disciplinary procedures;

(iv) breach of contract;

(v) unauthorised deductions from wages; and

(vi) what he termed 'possibly sex discrimination'.

2.	(i)	By letter from the Office of the Tribunals of 17 May 20005, the claimant was informed that part of his claim could not be accepted.
	(ii)	The claim of failure to give statutory grievance/disciplinary procedures was accepted.
	(iii)	The claims for breach of implied contractual duty of mutual trust and confidence and breach of contract were rejected because the tribunal did not have power to consider those claims. From the claim form it appeared that at the time of presenting his claims, the claimant was still employed by the first-named respondent, and as his employment had not terminated, a tribunal does not have power to determine a contract claim.
	(iv)	The claims in respect of victimisation and sex discrimination were rejected because the claimant had provided insufficient details of these claims and because there was no indication of whether he had followed the statutory grievance procedure, and the claim in respect of unauthorised deductions from wages was rejected for the latter reason.
3.	(i)	By letter dated 31 May 2005, the claimant sought a review of the tribunal's decision.
	(ii)	By letter of 30 June 2005, the claimant was informed that a Review Hearing would take place on 4 August 2005 at 10.00 am.
	(iii)	On 29 July 2005 the claimant wrote seeking a postponement of the Review Hearing. He indicated that he wished to take further legal advice. In the meantime, the respondents to the part of his claim which had been accepted had indicated that they wanted to make an application to strike it out, and the claimant requested further time to respond to that application.

2. At my direction the claimant was informed:-

(i) that his application for a postponement had been refused. It was indicated to him that the Review Hearing was to consider his application for a review of the decision not to accept parts of his claim, and that it would not deal with the respondent's application to strike out that part of his claim which had been accepted; and

(ii) that he could, if he wished, renew his application for a postponement on the morning of the hearing.

5.	(i)	On being informed of this the claimant drew the attention of the Office of the Tribunals to a further letter which he had written on 1 August 2005. In it he had stated, "I would respectfully like to further request a postponement on medical grounds. It seems that the symptoms of an illness (serious illness) I experienced earlier in the year are surfacing again – and I predict by Thursday – 4/8/05 – the date of the Review Hearing – they would be worse". The nature of the illness and its symptoms were not specified.
	(ii)	On seeing this letter, I directed that the claimant be informed that he should produce a medical certificate in support of his application for a postponement. He was informed of this in a telephone call from the Office. His response (according to the clerk's note of the call) was that "he might be too ill to attend on Thursday".
	(iii)	The claimant did not attend at the time and date fixed for hearing. No medical evidence was submitted by him or on his behalf. In these circumstances I proceeded to determine his application for a review in his absence. In doing so, I had regard to the contents of the correspondence from him, in particular his substantive letter of 31 May 2005.
6.	(i)	As far as the claims for breach of the implied contractual duty of mutual trust and confidence and breach of contract are concerned, the position remains that it appears that the claimant was still in employment when these claims were presented. Consequently, a tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with contract claim.
	(ii)	As far as the victimisation, sex discrimination and unlawful deductions from wages claims are concerned, the claimant indicates that he is aware that there is now a statutory requirement to follow a grievance procedure before presenting a claim to a tribunal. He says that the reason he did not use that grievance procedure is because he did not know and had not received his employer's grievance procedure. However, be that as it may, there was nothing to prevent the claimant setting out his grievance in writing as required by Article 19 and Schedules 1 and 3 of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. Invoking this minimum statutory procedure is not contingent on an employee receiving a full grievance procedure from his employer.
	(iii)	As far as the victimisation and sex discrimination claims are concerned I remain satisfied that the claimant has provided insufficient details of these claims.

3. I therefore confirm the decision of 17 May 2005 not to accept those parts of the claimant's claim other than that relating to failure to provide him with statutory grievance/disciplinary procedures, and I refuse his application for a review.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 4 August 2005, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: