BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> McDonnell v Patterson & Ors (Preliminary Issue : Jurisdiction) [2002] NIIT 379_01 (15 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/141.html Cite as: [2002] NIIT 379_1, [2002] NIIT 379_01 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
McDonnell v Patterson & Ors (Preliminary Issue : Jurisdiction) [2002] NIIT 379_01 (15 October 2002)
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 379/01
APPLICANT: Leanne McDonnell
Robert and Diane Patterson
2.
Rockmount Enterprises Limited
DECISION
The unanimous finding of the Tribunal is that.
Appearances:
The applicant was represented by Kevin R Winters & Company, Solicitors
The respondents were represented by Ms M Orr of Wilson Nesbitt, Solicitors
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. The respondents' representative submitted that, on account of the provisions of Article 140 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, the applicant was disqualified from the right not be unfairly dismissed regarding the minimum period of continuous employment. The tribunal had regard to the applicant's Originating Application and to the respondents' Notice of Appearance. The applicant's employment by the respondents commenced on 22 November 2001 and the applicant was dismissed by the respondents on 18 January 2002, with pay in lieu of notice. The applicant was therefore continuously employed by the respondents for less than the minimum period of time provided by Article 140 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 in order to qualify for the right to present a complaint to the tribunal of unfair dismissal. There was no evidence that the matter fell within any of the statutory exceptions to the said period. This being the case, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal and the applicant's complaint is dismissed, without further order.
Chairman:
Date:
Date and place of hearing:
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: