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 >> Wyrwas v Re-Gen Waste Ltd [2017] NIIT 01815_16IT (01 March 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2017/01815_16IT.html
Cite as: [2017] NIIT 1815_16IT, [2017] NIIT 01815_16IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1815/16
CLAIMANT: Lukasz Wyrwas
RESPONDENT: Re-Gen Waste Ltd
DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The applications which were the subject-matters of this Pre-Hearing Review ("PHR") were withdrawn during the course of the hearing of this PHR, and accordingly are dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr Patrick Sloan of Citizens Advice Newry.
The respondent was represented by Ms R Connolly, Solicitor.
REASONS
1. Article 70B of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 ("ERO") confers the right upon a worker not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a public interest disclosure.
2. The unfair dismissals legislation is contained in Part XI of ERO. Article 134A is contained in Part XI. The effect of Article 134A is that an employee who is dismissed is to be regarded for the purposes of the unfair dismissals legislation as having been unfairly dismissed if the reason, or the principal reason, for the dismissal is that the employee made a public interest disclosure.
3. The purpose of this PHR was to determine the following issues:
(1) Whether the claimant's claim form is properly to be construed as already containing a complaint under Article 70B and, if not, whether the claimant should be granted leave to amend his claim form so as to include such a claim.
(2) Whether the claimant's claim form is properly to be construed as already containing a complaint of automatically unfair dismissal within the meaning of Article 134A and, if not, whether the claimant should be granted leave to amend his claim form so as to include such a claim.
4. For pragmatic reasons, it has been decided, on behalf of the claimant, not to pursue any complaints pursuant to Article 70B or Article 134A.
5. For that reason, the applications which were the subject of this PHR have been dismissed.
Employment Judge:
Date and place of hearing: 6 February 2017, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: