United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: In early 1996 the Respondent Authority advertised two vacant posts in the rank of Assistant Chief Constable. The Appellant, who is of Irish nationality and was then serving as a Chief Superintendent in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, applied for both posts in writing on 1 February 1996,

The names of all candidates were submitted to a short-listing Committee which met on 6 March 1996. The Appellant was not short-listed for either post. He was so informed by letter dated 7 March.

On 20 March the Appellant wrote to the Respondent asking for feedback as to the selection criteria used and the reasons for his failure to make the short-list. The Respondent replied on 18 April 1996. He wrote again on 22 April seeking further clarification, but received no substantive reply.

On 17 July 1996 he sought advice from the Manchester Racial Equality Council and on 30 July presented a complaint of unlawful racial discrimination to an Industrial Tribunal.

The Respondent entered a Notice of Appearance resisting the claim and taking the point that the complaint had been presented outside the three month time limit provided for in Section 68(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976.

The limitation point was taken as a preliminary issue before the Manchester Industrial Tribunal (Chairman: Mr M L Creed, sitting alone) on 11 November 1996. The Chairman dismissed the complaint, holding that the complaint was presented outside the primary limitation period, and further that it would not, in all the circumstances, be just and equitable to extend time under Section 68(6) of the 1976 Act. Extended Reasons for that decision are dated 19 November 1996 (the original decision).

The Appellant then applied by letter dated 26 November for a review of the original decision. That application was summarily dismissed under Rule 11(5) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 in a further decision by the Chairman with Extended Reasons dated 22 January 1997.

Against the original decision the Appellant also appealed by a Notice received on 30 December 1996, attaching a copy of his review application dated 26 November 1996.

This is a preliminary hearing, held to determine whether or not the Notice of Appeal raises any arguable point or points of law. By letter dated 6 March 1997 the Appellant informed the Appeal Tribunal that he would not be attending this hearing due to illness. He asked us to take into account his written representations, and that we have done.

It was common ground that the complaint was presented out of time. The question was and is whether the Chairman ought to have exercised his discretion in favour of allowing the complaint to proceed under the just and equitable principle.

The Appellant's case was that the Respondent was tardy in replying to correspondence and in particular his letter of 22 April 1996. He relied upon an Industrial Tribunal decision, Singh v London Borough of Ealing (COIT 2149/17).

It should by now be clearly understood that an Industrial Tribunal has a wide discretion under Section 68(6) of the 1976 Act. See Hutchison v Westward Television Ltd [1977] ICR 279; Hawkins v Ball & Barclays Bank Plc [1996] IRLR 258. Having considered the detailed reasons given by the Chairman for his refusing to extend time contained in paragraph 5 of the original decision, we can see no grounds for interfering with that exercise of discretion.

In these circumstances the appeal is dismissed.