Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Mulligan v Iceland Foods Limited [2010] NIIT 6977_09IT (20 October 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/6977_09IT.html
Cite as: [2010] NIIT 6977_09IT, [2010] NIIT 6977_9IT

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 6977/09

CLAIMANT: Paul Mulligan

RESPONDENT: Iceland Foods Limited

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claim is dismissed in its entirety.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Mrs Ó Murray

Members: Mr J E Martin

Mr N Wilkinson

Appearances:

The claimant did not appear and was not represented

The respondent was represented by Mr R Dowd, Barrister-at-Law instructed by
D W F LLP.

Reasons

1. The following decision was delivered orally at the hearing:

“The claimant’s claim is for failure by the respondent to allow him to exercise his right to be accompanied to a grievance hearing on 3 September 2009.

2. The right to be accompanied is contained in the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 at Articles12 and 13. Under that legislation the companion must be a Trade Union official or a co-worker employed by the respondent. The remedy is two 2 weeks’ pay.

3. The claimant’s mother indicated in a letter of 4 October 2010 to the tribunal office, that the claimant was ill and unable to attend today’s hearing. The claimant was advised by the tribunal office by email and voice mail yesterday that today’s case remained listed and that he, or someone on his behalf, would need to attend with medical evidence in relation to his fitness to attend.

4. The claimant did not appear today and nor did anyone on his behalf. There has been no communication from the claimant nor from anyone on his behalf to the tribunal office nor to the respondent.

5. The respondent’s representative Mr Dowd, invited the tribunal to strike out the claimant’s case. As this case has a history of a previous hearing that was adjourned on the day due to the claimant’s inability to attend which was notified on that day, and there is a history of non-communication from the claimant, we decided to proceed to hear the case on the merits under Rule 27. In deciding to proceed we have borne in mind the over-riding objective and the very limited value of this claim.

6. We considered the claimant’s claim form and the evidence from Mr Morley for the respondent. Having considered the evidence both oral and documentary we are satisfied that Mr Baxter, the proposed companion of the claimant at the grievance hearing, was neither an employee of the respondent nor a Trade Union official. The claimant indeed confirmed this in his claim form. We are therefore satisfied that the claimant’s claim for breach of the right to be accompanied must fail and we hereby dismiss the case on that basis.

7. We decline, however, the respondent’s application for costs. Whilst we are content that the claimant’s claim appears to have been misconceived, we are not convinced that it would be appropriate to award costs in the circumstances in this case. Costs are the exception in tribunal cases and there is already a Costs Order extant against the claimant and we have been able to proceed to decide this case today. On that basis therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion to make a further award of costs against the claimant”.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 7 October 2010, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010