Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 

CASE REF:   532/14

 

 

 

CLAIMANT:            Anne Teresa Madden

 

 

RESPONDENTS:    1.       Irish National Teachers Organisation

                              2.       Gerry Murphy

                              3.       Rita Fox

                              4.       Mary Dorman        

 

 

 

DECISION ON A PRE HEARING REVIEW

 

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended) to hear the claimant’s claim.  She is not an employee of any of the respondents, and was elected to the post of Secretary of the South Derry Branch of INTO.  The claimant is not an office holder as defined in the legislation or holder of any other non-employment office in a Trade Union which would afford the tribunal statutory jurisdiction to consider her claim.  Her claim is therefore dismissed.

 

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

 

Employment Judge:         Employment Judge Crothers

 

Members:                        Mr R Hanna

                                        Mrs D Adams

 

 

Appearances:

 

The claimant was present and represented herself.

 

The respondents were represented by Mr Harron of the Irish National Teachers Organisation (“INTO”).

 

 

The Issues

 

1.               The issues before the tribunal were as follows:-

 

(1)            Whether the Industrial Tribunal has statutory jurisdiction under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended (“DDA”) to hear a claim where the claimant was not an employee of any of the respondents and where the claim relates to the holding of an elected office or other non-employment office in a Trade Union.

 

(2)            Whether the claim should be dismissed as being outsider the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.

 

Sources of Evidence

 

2.               The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and was presented with a number of documents in the course of the hearing. 

 

Findings of Fact

 

3.               Having considered the evidence insofar as same was relevant to the issues before it, the tribunal made the following findings of fact:-

 

(i)              The claimant was elected as Secretary of the South Derry Branch of INTO approximately 44 years ago.  She was re-elected each year until 2010.  Since then she agreed to continue as Acting Secretary until a replacement was elected. 

 

(ii)             The claimant received an honorarium of £200 per year from the INTO Branch together with any telephone or travel expenses due and the repayment of any monies provided by her to helpers for filling envelopes for meetings.

 

(iii)            The respondents’ position in relation to the issues before the tribunal is summarised in paragraph 6.2 of its response to the claimant’s claim as follows:-

 

“The first ground on which the respondents resist the claim is that the claimant is not, and never has been, an employee of INTO or a worker providing services to INTO.  Secondly, the named respondents, Mrs Rita Fox and Mrs Mary Dorman are not employers”.

 

(iv)           The claimant relied on P60 documentation which showed a deduction for income tax made by INTO.  However the amount deducted was made up by the Branch, meaning that, in effect, the claimant still obtained £200.

 

(v)             Towards the end of cross-examination it was put to the claimant that she was confirming that she was not an employee or a worker providing services to INTO.  She agreed and asserted that she was “somewhere in between”.  When it was put to her that somewhere in between was not good enough, the claimant stated that she “did not know” and that she did not fit into any category.

 

The Law

 

4.               Article 68 of the DDA, provides as follows:-

 

                    “”Employment” means, subject to any prescribed provision, employment under a contract of service or of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do any work, and related expressions are to be constructed accordingly”.

 

In relation to office-holders, Section 4F(1) of the DDA provides that “appointment to an office or post does not include election to an office or post”.

 

Conclusion

 

5.               Having applied the relevant principles of law to the findings of fact the tribunal concludes that it does not have jurisdiction under the DDA to hear the claimant’s claim.  She is not an employee of any of the respondents and was also elected to the post of Secretary of the South Derry Branch of INTO.  Furthermore, the claimant is not an office holder as defined in the DDA or holder of any other non-employment office in a Trade Union which would afford the tribunal statutory jurisdiction to consider her claim.  Her claim is therefore dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

Employment Judge:      

 

 

Date and place of hearing:  29 August 2014, Belfast.                 

 

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: