Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Oliver v Belfast City Council Grove Management [2011] NIIT 00858_11IT (06 September 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/858_11IT.html

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

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 858/11

CLAIMANT: Robert Joseph Oliver

RESPONDENTS: 1. Belfast City Council

2. Grove Management

DECISION

The decision of the tribunal is that the claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination are commenced outside the time limit laid down for their commencement and that the tribunal does not exercise its discretion to extend the time limits to allow the claims to be heard.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone): Mr S M P Cross

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Rev P Burns.

The respondents were represented by Mr Mark Robinson (Barrister-at-Law) instructed by Ms N Largey of Legal Services, Belfast City Council.

Findings of Fact

1. At the outset of this preliminary hearing the tribunal sought to determine whether the claimant's claims had been brought within the appropriate time limits and if not, whether the tribunal would exercise its discretion to extend the time for lodging the complaint. The claimant made an application to adjourn this hearing in order to secure the attendance of a Mr Sean Kerr. The chairman, aware that the date fixed for this hearing had been indicated to the claimant as long ago as 17 June 2011, refused this application as the claimant had had ample time to secure the attendance of Mr Kerr.

2. The tribunal heard that the claimant had been dismissed on health grounds on 3 November 2007. Prior to that he had been employed as a fitter at the respondent's swimming pools. Whether the claimant had been dismissed, or had resigned on health grounds is a matter for argument but in any event his employment ended on 3 November. There is no doubt that the claimant was in a bad state of health at that time and had to undergo operations and was for about six months dependent on drugs. This period of about six months was very difficult for the claimant and he would not have been in a fit state to deal with a claim to the tribunal. However by November 2008, a year later the claimant was in a position to raise various grievance matters with the respondents and these were investigated during the next four months and a letter concerning the grievance investigation was received by the claimant in early April 2009. The claimant had clearly been able to deal with these grievance matters during this period. Furthermore the claimant, having been injured towards the end of his employment, when he suffered burns to his arm, commenced County Court proceedings against the respondent which were dealt with in court during 2008. Again the claimant was able to deal with instructing solicitors and making statements concerning this industrial injury.

3. When his employment came to an end the claimant was a member of Unite and was in correspondence with the union through Mr Collins the regional officer, concerning his problems with his employer. However the claimant told a tribunal that he was dissatisfied with the support that he was getting and therefore resigned from the union. The letter accepting his resignation from Unite is dated 1 December 2008. Clearly the claimant was in a position to deal with his problems at that stage and enter into correspondence with his union.

4. The claimant’s claim was received by the tribunal office on 25 March 2011. In the meantime the claimant had been in contact with various politicians and others who either offered help or declined to do so. To some extent he was let down by people who said that they would look into his case but failed to do so and he therefore suffered time delays when nothing happened.

The Law

5. Both the unfair dismissal claim, that is governed by The Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the 1996 Order”) and the disability claim that is brought under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act), prescribe a three month time limit for the claimant to commence proceedings.

6. Article 145(2) of the 1996 Order states

“…………………an industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this Article

Unless it is presented to the tribunal-

(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination or

(b) 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 before the end of that period of three months.”

7. The time requirement for a claim for disability discrimination is set out in Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act. Again the limitation is three months but in this case the wording giving the tribunal discretion to extend the period is as follows:-

“3(2) A tribunal may consider any such complaint which is out of time if, in all the circumstances of the case, it considers that it is just and equitable to do so.”

Decision of the tribunal

8. Clearly in this case it would have been difficult for the claimant to have bought his claim within the first six months from his dismissal. He was seriously ill and from time to time in hospital and receiving medication which would have made it difficult for him to contemplate commencing tribunal proceedings. However once that period elapsed it is clear that the claimant was able to look after his personal affairs. He was able to commence proceedings in the courts in respect of his employment injury and indeed was able to involve the respondent in a grievance complaint. He was in contact from time to time with solicitors and with his trade union and had ample opportunity to discuss his employment situation with any of these advisers. The fact is that he chose to try and involve local politicians to help him in his claim. This involved further delays before his proceedings were finally commenced.

9. This tribunal holds that from November 2008 the claimant was in a fit medical state to deal with business matters and indeed proved that by handling the claims mentioned above. The tribunal therefore holds that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to commence the tribunal proceedings from any time after November 2008 and the tribunal considers the additional delay to be unreasonable and it is not prepared to extend this time to allow these proceedings to continue.

10. So far as the disability discrimination proceedings are concerned the same arguments apply and the tribunal holds that it would not be just and equitable to allow the claimant to benefit from these serious delays. It would have been just and equitable to allow him a number of months after November 2008 to bring the disability discrimination proceedings but it would not be just and equitable to allow the delay of these proceedings until May 2011.

11. For these reasons the tribunal holds that the proceedings, both for the disability discrimination and unfair dismissal should be dismissed as being brought outside the relevant time limits for presenting such claims.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 4 August 2011, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

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