Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Eves v H R Connect Department of Finance and Pers... [2011] NIIT 02536_10IT (17 December 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/02536_10IT.html
Cite as: [2011] NIIT 2536_10IT, [2011] NIIT 02536_10IT
[New search] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2536/10
CLAIMANT:
Jonathan Eves
RESPONDENT: 1. H R Connect
2. Department of Finance and Personnel
Certificate of Correction
In the
Decision on Review issued on 17 November 2011, the first line in paragraph
numbered 1 under the heading Decision should read:
“This review decision should be read in conjunction with the decision of this tribunal issued to the parties on 27 July 2011” and not 27 July 2007.
Chairman:
Date: 28 November 2011
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2536/10
CLAIMANT: Jonathan Eves
RESPONDENTS: 1. HR Connect
2. Department of Finance and Personnel
DECISION ON REVIEW
The decision of the Tribunal, having heard the claimant’s arguments concerning his case, that he suffered indirect race discrimination at the hands of the respondents, is that the claimant’s application for a review of the tribunal’s decision in this case should be refused. The claimant’s review application was heard by the tribunal under Rule 36 of The Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr Cross
Members Mrs Cummins
Mr Devlin
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and was not represented.
The respondents were represented by Mr Michael Potter, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Departmental Solicitor’s Office.
DECISION
1. This review decision should be read in conjunction with the decision of this tribunal issued to the parties on 27 July 2007. The claimant sought a review of that decision on the grounds that the tribunal, although it had dealt with the claim for direct race discrimination, failed to address the claim of indirect discrimination. There had been some arguments at an early stage of these proceedings as to whether the claimant had made a claim for indirect discrimination and at the case management discussion held on 21 February 2011, the chairman dealing with the case management discussion, Mr Kinney, directed that the claim for indirect race discrimination should be heard together with the claim for direct race discrimination.
2. The tribunal having considered again the case management order of Mr Kinney, hold that the interests of justice require this tribunal to consider the claim of indirect discrimination which was made by the claimant.
3. The claimant's claim of indirect discrimination on racial grounds is based on the fact that the respondent's recruitment policy requires that each recruitment panel is balanced in the terms of sex and community background. The claimant alleges that this policy means that representatives from both Protestant and Roman Catholic communities in Northern Ireland be present on interview panels and he believes that this indirectly discriminates against immigrants on the basis of race. The claimant provided statistics which he alleges demonstrate under representation of immigrants in the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
4. The claimant does not argue that interview panels should of necessity be comprised of all minority interests, such as disabled people and people of different ages, as this would be impracticable. He does, however argue that the automatic inclusion in Northern Ireland of persons representing the two dominant religious groupings militates against immigrants. The claimant referred to the situation in South Africa and gave statistics to support the argument that a panel not of mixed race in South Africa is not necessary to ensure a fair process.
5. Mr Potter on behalf of the respondents, argued, that in the historical context of employment in Northern Ireland, it was still necessary to have a mixed panel of perceived religious backgrounds. The problems that had existed in the past were only now disappearing and it was vital that the public perception of fairness in the civil service recruitment was maintained. He saw no disadvantage arising for the claimant as a result of a mixed panel in the Northern Ireland tradition, as the members of the panel would be neutral insofar as concerned discrimination on other grounds.
6. The tribunal having considered these matters, holds that there is no evidence against the respondents that the composition of the interview panel, which comprised men and women of presumably different religious backgrounds, had any effect on the panel’s ability to avoid discrimination against an applicant on grounds of race, or for that matter on any other ground. The tribunal believes that the perception of balance is still required in the Northern Ireland context, but this does not mean that the representatives on the panel are there to protect their own communities at the expense of other groups. All panel members are trained and professional and are there to see that fairness is applied to all applicants.
7. For this reason, the claimant's claim, that he was indirectly discriminated against by the panel on the grounds of his race is dismissed. The tribunal accordingly dismisses the application and the decision of the tribunal in the case, as set out in the written decision is confirmed, with the addition of the dismissal of the claimant’s claim for indirect race discrimination.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 21 October 2011
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: