Edgar v East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education [2004] NIIT 1618_03 (20 January 2004)


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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Edgar v East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education [2004] NIIT 1618_03 (20 January 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/1618_03.html
Cite as: [2004] NIIT 1618_03, [2004] NIIT 1618_3

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


     

    INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

    CASE REF: 1618/03

    APPLICANT: Lisa Edgar

    RESPONDENT: East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education

    DECISION

    The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant's claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed by the tribunal.

    Appearances:

    The applicant appeared in person.

    The respondent was represented by Mr Colmer Barrister-at-Law instructed by the Education & Library Boards Legal Service.

    Decision of the tribunal given in summary form.

  1. The tribunal heard that the applicant was employed on a temporary contract by the respondent to work as a clerical officer with the Learn Direct Project for a six-month fixed term contract with a possibility of extension. Unfortunately the respondent made a mistake in the applicant's conditions of service in that it described her job status as "employed in a permanent part-time capacity". This was despite the fact that the job advertisement which the applicant saw and responded to referred to "Six months with possibility of extension" and the job description which was sent to her on her application described the post as "Six months with possibility of extension".

  2. During the course of her six months employment which had commenced on 12 November 2001 the applicant applied for a mortgage from Halifax plc. Halifax plc, on the instructions of the applicant, wrote to the respondent asking for details of the applicant's employment. The respondent wrote back on 8 April 2002 stating that the applicant was on a temporary six-month contract to be reviewed week ending 10 May 2002. This letter was followed up on 14 May 2002 by a letter from the personnel officer of the respondent stating that the applicant's contract of employment had been extended for another six months from 12 May 2002 to 12 November 2002.

  3. The personnel officer on behalf of the respondent stated that she had spoken to the applicant explaining that she had written the letter to the Building Society. The tribunal accept this evidence despite the fact that the applicant stated that no such information was given to her.

  4. The applicant's part-time employment finally expired on 31 March 2003. By this time the Learn Direct programme, which was an online learning operation, had wound down and the applicant, whilst doing some processing work in connection with finalising the Scheme, was in fact employed to some extent on other aspects of the respondent's work.

  5. The applicant had placed some reliance on the fact that during the course of her employment she had been issued with a uniform and indeed had bought additional pieces of uniform to augment what had been issued. However, the tribunal heard that all staff including temporary staff were issued with uniforms and accept that evidence. The tribunal were also influenced by the fact that the applicant herself stated, that when she started her employment, she was told that the Scheme was getting a "Pink Light". This was a reference to the likelihood of the Scheme getting a "Red Light" and having to stop, or getting a "Green Light" and being allowed to proceed. The tribunal are of the view that the applicant knew that this was a temporary contract and might well not be extended indefinitely.

  6. For these reasons the tribunal hold that the dismissal of the applicant was a fair dismissal in that it falls under the heading "some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held" under Article 130(1)(b) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The tribunal unanimously hold that this was a temporary contract, renewed on two occasions, which had to be terminated due to the downturn in the appropriate work. The tribunal are satisfied there was no other work of an appropriate nature for the applicant and therefore her temporary fixed term contract was brought to an end fairly. The applicant knew that this was a temporary fixed term contract and the reason for it had ceased to exist.

    7. Chairman:

    Date and place of hearing: 20 January 2004, Belfast.

    Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/1618_03.html