Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Devlin v Randox Ltd [2011] NIIT 01824_11IT (07 December 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01824_11IT.html
Cite as: [2011] NIIT 01824_11IT, [2011] NIIT 1824_11IT

[New search] [Help]

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 01824/11

CLAIMANT: Danielle Devlin

RESPONDENT: Randox Ltd

DECISION ON PRE HEARING REVIEW

The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claim for breach of contract is struck out on the ground that it is misconceived in that it has no reasonable prospect of success.

Constitution of Tribunal:

President (sitting alone): Miss E McBride

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Ms D Kelly MLA.

The respondent was represented by Ms E Torrens, Solicitor, of the respondent.

1. The claimant’s claim to the tribunal contained a complaint of unfair dismissal and a claim for breach of contract. As the claimant had less than one year’s service her complaint of unfair dismissal was not accepted. She did not seek a review or appeal of that decision. That left her claim for breach of contract.

Issues

2. This Pre Hearing Review was arranged for the tribunal to determine the following issues:-

(i) whether the claimant’s claim for breach of contract should be struck out on the ground that it is misconceived i.e. that it has no reasonable prospect of success;

(ii) alternatively whether the claimant’s claim for breach of contract has little reasonable prospect of success and, if so, whether she should be ordered to pay a deposit not exceeding £500 as a condition of being permitted to continue with her claim.

The respondent’s contentions

3. The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on 4 April 2011 as a Sales and Marketing Executive subject to a three month training period.

4. The statement of the claimant’s main terms and conditions for the training period, which she signed on 4 April 2011, entitled both the claimant and the respondent to terminate the contract:-

(a) without giving the other any notice where the claimant had less than one month’s service;

(b) by giving the other four weeks’ notice where the claimant had more than one month’s service.

5. In accordance with the contract the respondent terminated the claimant’s employment on 19 April 2011 for performance related reasons and, as the claimant had less than one month’s service at that stage, she was not contractually entitled to any notice.

6. In those circumstances:-

(i) the respondent has not breached the claimant’s contract of employment; and

(ii) the claimant’s claim is misconceived because it has no reasonable prospect of success;

and should therefore be struck out.

The claimant’s contentions

7. The respondent’s letter of 26 March 2011 making the claimant a formal offer of employment stated that her employment would be subject to a three month training period and that once the training period was successfully completed she would be issued with a permanent contract.

8. The clause headed “Tenureship of Employment” in the respondent’s terms and conditions states:-

“To ensure that new employees fit the job requirements we have put in place a three month training and a six month probation period. This is a period during which management can review attributes of an employee and ensure it matches the requirements. This is to ensure that the new employee fit the role and can work pro actively with all team members as is industry standard.”

9. The respondent breached the claimant’s contract of employment by failing to provide the claimant with intensive training, sufficient study time, sufficient support or any feedback during her period of employment and that 11 days was not sufficient time to assess the claimant.

10. The claimant who is highly qualified had left a well paid job to take up this employment and was left shocked and very upset by the respondent’s action.

Conclusion

11. Having considered the documents that were provided to me together with the contentions of the parties, as summarised above, I am satisfied that the claimant’s contract of employment did not require specific training to be provided to the claimant. Even if it had required specific training to be provided, it did not prevent either party terminating the contract during the training period. On the contrary, as the claimant has very fairly accepted, the claimant’s contract of employment entitled both parties to terminate the contract at any stage, provided that the agreed notice was given. The contract also entitled both parties to terminate the contract without notice where the claimant had been employed for less than one month. This is in accordance with Article 118 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. In those circumstances I am satisfied that the claimant’s complaint of breach of contract has no reasonable prospect of success and it is therefore struck out.

______________________________________

E McBride CBE

President

Date and place of hearing: 1 December 2011, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

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