Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 94/06

CLAIMANT: Adam Patton Taggart

RESPONDENTS: 1. Donaghadee Carpets Ltd

(in administrative receivership)

2. Pricewaterhousecoopers

DECISION ON A REVIEW

The decision of the tribunal on this review is:-

(a) The tribunal at the first hearing had not understood that the claimant was making a claim for a protective award under Article 217 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (hereinafter called the 1996 Order). The tribunal therefore considered this claim for a protective award, the claimant having indicated that he had no other claim against the respondents.

(b) The tribunal however holds that it cannot consider whether the claimant had made a claim for a protective award for a period of 90 days under Article 217 of the 1996 Order, as that claim is made outside the time limit laid down by Article 217(5)(b) of the 1996 Order and as the tribunal does not exercise its discretion to extend the time for making the claim under Article 217 (5)(c) of the 1996 Order. The claimant's claim is therefore dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Cross

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person.

The respondents were not represented and did not appear before the tribunal.

Reasons

1. The claimant's employment ended on 20 December 2004 and his claim was received by the tribunal on 13 January 2006. The tribunal at the original hearing of this claim had wrongly assumed that the claim was for notice pay and had been received on 13 January 2005 and consequently would have been within the time limit of three months laid down by the 1996 Order. However the claim is for a protective award not for notice pay.
2. The closure of the first-named respondent's factory on 20 December 2004 meant that a large number of employees were made redundant. Many of them brought claims for a protective award under Article 217 of the 1996 Order, but this claimant failed to make such an application within the required time. The only explanation which the claimant could give for his failure to make such an application to the tribunal was that he had been out of touch with his fellow workers, none of whom he had seen for a long time after he left the factory. None of his fellow workers had contacted him to explain that they were bringing proceedings before the tribunal.
3. The claimant's claim should have been made before 20 March 2005. It was not actually received by the tribunal until 13 January 2006. The tribunal can only extend the time limit under Article 217(5)(c) of the 1996 Order. This provision states that a claim can be allowed to stand if it is brought "within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented" within the three month time limit laid down by Article 217.
4. It was clearly practicable for the claimant to bring his claim for a protective award within that period of three months from 20 December 2004 and had the claimant sought advice from either a solicitor or Citizen's Advice Bureau or the Labour Relations Agency he would have been advised to have brought such a claim. Insofar as the application for a protective award is concerned the time limit for bringing such a claim is three months from the date on which "the last of the dismissals to which the complaint relates takes effect". This was 20 December 2004.
5. It is clearly unfortunate that this claimant, unlike his fellow employees in the factory, was unable to receive his protective award. However this tribunal cannot extend the time limit on the grounds that it would be equitable to do so. The tribunal can only extend the time limit on the grounds of it not being reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the appropriate cut-off date. Unfortunately the claimant cannot give any explanation which would show that it was not practicable for him to make such a complaint and therefore the time limit cannot be extended. The tribunal therefore dismisses the claim brought by the claimant in his application to the tribunal.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 21 August 2006, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: