McGuigan v Belfast City Council [2010] NIIT 183

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 183/09

CLAIMANT: Joseph McGuigan

RESPONDENT: Belfast City Council

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was not subjected to a detriment contrary to Article 73(1)(B) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Ms W A Crooke

Members: Ms E Kennedy

Mr R Hanna

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr Patrick Moore, LLB of PM Associates.

The respondent was represented by Mr Patrick Ferrity, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Legal Department of Belfast City Council.

Sources of Evidence

1. The tribunal had several bundles of agreed documents before it. The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf. On behalf of the respondent, oral evidence was given by Trevor Martin, Steven Hewitt, Mark McBride, Helen Devlin, Jill Minne and Teresa McKenna.

2. There were also other witness statements before the tribunal from Donal Rogan, Karen Fennel-Jenkins, Tim Walker, Michael McAtackney, Jill Ferguson, Conor McCleave, Sonia Boyle, Valerie Cupples and Heather Louden. These persons were not called to give oral evidence to the tribunal and the tribunal has given weight to their statements only insofar as they collaborate evidence given orally by the persons above-named.

The Claim and the Defence

3. During the hearing and by agreement the tribunal amended the legal issues before it to read as follows:

a. Did the respondent subject the claimant to a detriment contrary to Article 73(1)(B) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and;

b. Did the respondent comply with the requirements of the Statutory Dispute Resolution Regulations as defined in Schedule 1 of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 in respect of the meeting of 11 November 2008?

The Relevant Law

4. The relevant law relating to detriment on grounds related to Union membership or activities is in Article 73(1) (B) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and states as follows:

73-(1) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment as an individual by any act, or any deliberate failure to act by his employer if the act or failure takes place for the sole or main purpose of -

(a) preventing or deterring him from being or seeking to become a member of an independent trade union, or penalising him for doing so.

(b) preventing or deterring him from taking in part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time, or penalising him for so, ……….”

Facts Found

5. (1) The claimant is a Building Control Surveyor (Entertainment Licensing) for the respondent.

(2) The claimant has worked for the respondent from 1 September 1984 and is still employed in the same capacity by the respondent.

(3) The claimant is a member of the union Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (hereinafter called “NIPSA”) and was elected as NIPSA representative for Building Control shortly after he commenced employment with the respondent.

(4) The claimant became Chairman of NIPSA Branch 526 in November 2007.

(5) Even prior to becoming Chairman the claimant actively represented the interests of NIPSA members within Building Control in employee relations matters. From 2004/2005 his representation extended beyond the Building Control Service into other departments of the respondent.

(6) The respondent is a Council that recognises Trade Unions and a Final Draft of the TU Facilities Agreement and Guidelines on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities was before the tribunal. The claimant argued that NIPSA did not agree to this document, although other Unions had agreed to it and cited an email dated 15 July 2005 raising queries about certain terms from Sharon Austin to Tom Wilkinson (presumably NIPSA personnel). The claimant did not produce any subsequent documents continuing to evidence NIPSA dissatisfaction with the agreement as being contrary to the Statutory Right of Representation. In contrast the respondent provided three minutes of Council bodies – two of the Trade Union Facilities Group dated 24 August 2006 and 25 June 2007 respectively and one of the Policy and Resources Committee dated 14 September 2006 which showed that there was a Facilities Agreement in operation which was to be reviewed in September 2008.

(7) As part of his job the claimant can be called upon to visit nightclubs. From in or around August 2006 the Building Control Service had a number of concerns about a Belfast nightclub called “The Kremlin” frequented by the gay community and a prosecution ensued. Stephen Hewitt who is a Senior Manager in Building Control received an anonymous complaint from “Seamus the Sheep” about the activities of Building Control in relation to The Kremlin and repelled it vigorously in or around 12 October 2006. The claimant and various colleagues visited the Kremlin premises up to

25 November 2006.

(8) In February 2007 Trevor Martin, the head of the Building Control Office told the claimant that a complaint had been made against the Building Control Service that it operated in a homophobic and commercially motivated way to the extent that it was carrying out a vendetta against The Kremlin.

(9) On 5 February 2007 Trevor Martin and others met with owners of The Kremlin. On 12 February 2007 Trevor Martin received a formal written complaint from Andre Graham, a Director of The Kremlin.

(10) Stephen Hewitt, a Senior Manager in Building Control and Mark McBride, the Business Support Manager, of Health and Environmental Services conducted an investigation into the complaint against the Building Control Service, and found that there was no substance in the complaints against the Building Control Service, but some issues of concern remained relating to the claimant and these were as follows:

(a) The claimant regularly DJ-ed in The Mynt Nightclub which could be a potential breach of the Council’s code of conduct and Building Control practice;

(b) On 22 December 2006 the claimant passed adverse comments about The Kremlin to staff in the Glenpark Bar and showed them his Council identification; and

(c) The claimant DJ-ed every Friday night in the back bar of the Glenpark Bar in Belfast which is not a venue licensed for Entertainment. (This allegation alone could have had the potential to be viewed as gross misconduct).

The letter requiring the claimant to attend a Stage 3 preliminary investigation was dated 21 September 2007, some seven months after receipt of the initial complaint from The Kremlin.

(11) After completion of the Stage 3 investigation, Jim Shields, Waste Manager, and Helen Devlin, Human Resources Advisor were required by Stanley Black, the then head of Human Resources, to carry out a full and formal investigation into this matter.

(12) Periodically the claimant complained about delays in the respondent’s processes.

(13) By a letter dated 12 December 2007 the respondent told the claimant that he was not to be given any licensing responsibilities for The Diamond Group, Mynt Nightclub or The Kremlin and there was to be a full formal Stage 3 disciplinary investigation into the three allegations set out in Paragraph 10 above.

(14)        From January 2008 to July 2008 Jim Shields and Colin Devlin carried out this investigation. They interviewed Brian Magill, Trevor Martin and Stephen Hewitt of Building Control and tried to interview Bartley Murphy and Emma Crawford the persons whose statements supported The Kremlin complaint. The claimant was interviewed on 4 July 2008. The result of this investigation was that the complaints against the claimant could not be substantiated but some recommendations were made and these were as follows:

(a)      Building Control Service should review the issue of conflicts of                     interest;

(b)      A more formal process should be agreed to address the claimant’s                          private DJing; and

(c)      The need to moderate his language and tone in formal meetings                     should be emphasised to the claimant.

(15) Jill Minne, the Acting Head of Human Resources had a meeting with the claimant in May 2008 to indicate that concerns had been raised about his behaviour in that complaints had been made that he was unnecessarily aggressive and used foul language to the extent that women, in particular, felt intimidated by him. She asked the claimant to reflect on this. This was an informal meeting.

(16)    By a letter dated 26 September 2008 to the claimant from Donal Rogan, the respondent indicated that it was going to conduct a preliminary investigation relating to the following matters:

(1)      The claimant’s unreasonable, inappropriate and potentially                          intimidating conduct as a Trade Union Representative;

(2)      An incident when the claimant allegedly behaved in an inappropriate,                    unreasonable and potentially intimidating manner towards a Council            Enforcement Officer, this being wholly unreasonable given that the                              claimant is a Principal Officer of the Council holding an Enforcement           and Regulatory role. This letter went into specifics of the alleged               misconduct and we are setting them out briefly as follows:-

(a)      The conversation with Conor McCleave with the alleged paramilitary             overtones.

(b) During a disciplinary hearing on 12 August 2008 for Mr Gerard McKirby the claimant referred to another Council Officer as “the nigger in the wood pile”.

(c) During a sickness absence review meeting with Ms Brenda Martin, the claimant and Ms Valerie Cupples on 12 August 2008, when Ms Cupples advised Ms McIntosh that she was issuing her with a caution allegedly the claimant told Ms Cupples “to shove it where the sun don’t shine”.

(d) During a disciplinary hearing on 23 September 2008 in respect of Mr Peter Kane, the claimant allegedly swore and was abusive to Sonia Boyle and Gerry Fleming who conducted the disciplinary hearing.

(e) On 16 September 2008 the claimant was verbally abusive and obstructive to Mr Richard Hamilton a Litter Warden.

The tribunal noted that while the claimant did not admit the paramilitary tone of the conversation with Conor McCleave, he did confirm that a conversation had taken place. Furthermore, the claimant admitted the incidences of inappropriate conduct in meetings that were set out above and also while he denied that he had littered, he did admit verbally abusive behaviour to the Litter Warden. As such he was required to attend a preliminary investigatory interview under Stage 3 of the Council’s disciplinary procedures on 8 October 2008.

(17) The tribunal noted that on the same day – 26 September 2008, the claimant was notified of the outcome of the allegations arising from The Kremlin nightclub investigation.

(18) By a letter dated 26 September 2008 the claimant was warned that he might be placed on precautionary suspension. At the meeting of Wednesday 8 October 2008, Donal Rogan confirmed the decision to place the claimant on paid precautionary suspension.

(19) By a letter dated 30 September 2008 the claimant raised a grievance about the incident of the Litter Warden. The claimant advised that during his conversation with Mr Sam Skimmin of 16 September 2008 he registered a verbal complaint about the conduct of the Litter Warden Mr Richard Hamilton, and his grievance was that Mr Skimmin had failed to act appropriately.

(20) By a letter dated13 October 2008 Brian Campfield, the Deputy General Secretary of NIPSA wrote protesting against the suspension and asking for further information about the claimant’s disciplinary investigation.

(21) By a letter dated 16 October 2008, Donal Rogan the Preliminary Investigating Officer indicated that his grievance was inextricably linked to the disciplinary allegations set out in the letter of 26 September 2008 and was being investigated as part of that procedure.

(22) By a letter dated 17 October 2008 Donal Rogan wrote to Brian Campfield giving details and clarification on the nature of the claimant’s suspension. He said that Human Resources had advised him that the claimant should not enter any Council premises during the suspension for any purpose or in any capacity without first seeking permission from his line management. This had the effect of preventing the claimant from accompanying his children to activities in Belfast City Council premises.

(23) The tribunal was also referred to a minute of a conversation between Kevin O’Doherty, Martin Power and Conor McCleave, in which Conor McCleave indicated that he did not want any disciplinary action to come out of his statement made against the claimant and stated that the whole thing had been blown out of proportion.

(24) By a letter dated 24 November 2008 from Jill Minne to Brian Campfield of NIPSA, Jill Minne confirmed that the claimant’s precautionary paid suspension was to be lifted on certain terms. This was despite the fact that no hearing had taken place.

(25) The disciplinary hearing into the five allegations took place on 6 January and 28 January 2009. By a letter dated 4 March 2009 from Stephen Hewitt and Sharon Steele to Mr Brian Campfield the respondent contended that all the allegations had been substantiated but was prepared to allow NIPSA to deal with four out of five of the allegations, leaving only the Litter Warden incident to be dealt with by the respondent.

(26) The eventual outcome of this allegation was that the claimant received a verbal warning.

(27) The second legal issue was whether or not the Council had failed to comply with the proper procedures set out in Schedule 1 of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 in respect of the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. The claimant’s difficulty related to a meeting on 11 November 2008. Half an hour before the reconvened hearing was due to start Teresa McKenna of Human Resources handed an outline agenda to Brian Campfield which sought to augment the allegations against the claimant by the inclusion of two additional issues which had not been mentioned previously and which occurred around six months previously. Mr Campfield indicated that he would not entertain the new allegations and the Council did not force the matter. They also indicated that they would hear his grievance about the Litter Warden incident as it was in their view inextricably linked to the disciplinary allegations. The claimant also rejected this proposal and the Council did not force the matter.

Conclusions

(28)    In the presentation of the claimant’s case, Mr Moore raised a number of factual issues and we respond to them as follows:

1.       Did the respondent have valid grounds to instigate disciplinary proceedings            against the claimant in December 2006 and September 2008?

          We consider that the respondent did have valid grounds to instigate           disciplinary proceedings as set out above. The complaint on behalf of “The Kremlin” did refer to the claimant. Although there was some suggestion that     The Kremlin personnel had mixed up the Building Control Personnel that                     they were actually complaining against, there was little to no doubt that the          claimant was involved because he was the person who DJ-ed in the Mynt    nightclub (for           whatever number of occasions) and the claimant admitted to     talking to one of the staff at the Glenpark Bar. The fact that a complaint was made required the respondent to investigate it. We consider that there were                  sufficient grounds for investigation. Given the nature of the allegations and              the issue of conflict of interest, we consider it was particularly important for                the claimant’s role to be investigated.

2. What was the reason for the delay in progressing and completing the disciplinary investigation that was commenced in December 2006?

The tribunal was extremely concerned at the delay involved in progressing and completing the investigation and disciplinary process arising out of The Kremlin complaint. There were delays, which the tribunal considered were unacceptable. Partly the delay appeared to be a difficulty in finding the actual persons who made the complaints – Bartley Murphy and Emma Crawford. Bartley Murphy did say to the investigators that he did not want to go forward with the complaint. Despite efforts by Helen Devlin, Emma Crawford could not be found, to substantiate her statement. However, a large part of the delay was caused by the investigation effectively being run over again, in that Helen Devlin and Jim Shields decided to interview everyone involved in The Kremlin complaint over again.

3. Were any complaints made at the relevant time by any employers or managers who were party to the incidents under investigation from September 2008.

The incidents under investigation from September 2008 were the five “complaints” set out in the letter of 26 September 2008. The actual written complaint by Conor McCleave was an email of 24 June 2008 and Conor McCleave subsequently confirmed to Human Resources in or around 26 September 2008 that he wanted the matter to be investigated. However the tribunal was referred to the written statement of Kevin O’Doherty and Martin Power which stated that Conor McCleave had told them that he did not want the claimant to be disciplined. Whilst no persons appeared to support this alleged statement, the tribunal has noted that Conor McCleave only wished the claimant not to be disciplined. He had not withdrawn his complaint or the desire for the matter to be investigated. The tribunal also found that there were a number of complaints from female employees of the Council such as Sonia Boyle, Valerie Cupples and Heather Lowden. In addition to the other incidences of behaviour on the part of the claimant, while none of the individuals had ever raised a formal complaint, they had however indicated to Human Resources that they felt that there was a difficulty with the claimant’s behaviour. This largely was the reason why Jill Minne had an informal meeting with the claimant in May 2008. However the claimant still indulged in inappropriate language in meetings after this informal meeting.

4. Did the respondent act on the complaint made by the claimant in October 2008 about the conduct of the litter warden towards on that day?

The tribunal finds that the respondent did act on the complaint in that it acknowledged the grievance and indicated that it would be heard. Initially, the respondent was minded to link this grievance to the hearing of the claimant’s disciplinary allegations. The claimant and his representative Mr Campfield indicated that that was not acceptable and the tribunal noted that the evidence of the persons involved in hearing the disciplinary hearing arising out of the five allegations that the claimant was entitled to raise his grievance separately was not controverted.

5. What was the outcome to the claimant’s complaint about the conduct of the litter warden in October 2008? (See 4 above).

6. Who took the decision to place the claimant on precautionary suspension on 8 October 2008?

The decision to place the claimant on precautionary suspension was taken by Donal Rogan and Eamon Neeson as investigating officers of the particular complaints.

7. What was the reason for imposing a precautionary suspension on 8 October 2008?

The reason for imposing a precautionary suspension was to prevent the claimant from seeking to interfere with any witnesses.

8. Did the respondent review the necessity for a precautionary suspension at any time after 8 October 2008?

The respondent reviewed it as a result of Brian Campfield’s correspondence and meetings with Jill Minne. By a letter dated 24 November 2008, from Jill Minne to Brian Campfield, Jill Minne indicated that she was prepared to lift the claimant’s precautionary paid suspension on certain terms.

9. Did the maintenance of the precautionary suspension prejudice the claimant’s position in respect of the disciplinary proceedings?

The tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the precautionary suspension in any way prejudiced the claimant’s position. Whilst the claimant may have been forbidden from using Belfast City Council property to carry out union business, there was nothing to suggest that he had been in any way prevented from talking to his union representative Mr Brian Campfield.

10. Did the outcome to disciplinary proceedings justify the necessity for the precautionary suspension?

The difficulty with any precautionary suspension is that at the time it is imposed, it is not known what the outcome of the investigation will be. Eventually in this case, the claimant was issued with a verbal warning in respect of the litter warden incident and the other items that were the subject of disciplinary action, were to be dealt with by NIPSA. The tribunal has noted that the claimant did not appeal this verbal warning.

11. Did the respondent seek to augment the allegations against the claimant at the reconvened investigation hearing on 11 November 2008?

The tribunal finds that the respondent did seek to augment the allegations against the claimant at this hearing but that this was resisted by the claimant and Mr Brian Campfield.

12. Was the respondent seeking to be fair to the claimant by introducing new allegations against the claimant at the reconvened hearing held on 11 November 2008?

The tribunal is not able to find any evidence to suggest that this is the case. Plainly, these additional allegations should have been subject to the procedure set out in Schedule 1 of the Employment (NI) Order 2003. All that Teresa McKenna was able to suggest was that she was trying to save time. As there was no suggestion that this was to benefit the claimant, the tribunal finds that there was no fairness in what the respondent attempted to do.

13. What was the reason for the respondent seeking to link the claimant’s grievance with the disciplinary allegations made against him?

The respondent’s reason as set out in correspondence was that it contended that this grievance was inextricably linked to the substance of the litter warden complaint. As these items arose out of the same factual matrix, the tribunal can see that there may have been some merit in trying to deal with them together, but as it is important to be seen to be transparent in disciplinary proceedings, the respondent should preferably have sought to keep the claimant’s grievance separate from the disciplinary allegation.

14. Did two senior managers coerce a witness into making a written statement against the claimant that contained unfounded allegations?

The tribunal found no evidence that this was the case. Although Conor McCleave was not called to give evidence, and neither were the two managers who allegedly coerced him, the tribunal has noted that the memorandum of the meeting between Conor McCleave, Martin Power and Kevin O’Doherty really only said that Conor McCleave did not want the claimant to be disciplined.

15. Did any of the witnesses to the allegations made against the claimant withdraw, amend or resile from their purported evidence?

The only evidence of amendment of evidence was in the evidence of Jill Minne and Trevor Martin who both indicated that they were unsure about the date of a meeting held with William Francey at which the claimant was discussed. A number of witnesses who had submitted witness statements were not called to give oral evidence against the claimant. If this is the matter of which the claimant complains, the tribunal considers that all of the witnesses who failed to give oral evidence fall into the category of witnesses who would be called essentially to rerun the investigation carried out by the respondent. As such, as a result of the case of Rogan v South Eastern Health and Social Services Care Trust [2009] NICA 47, this is prohibited. All the tribunal is required to do is to consider whether the three tests in the case of British Homes Stores v Burchell have been met. Mr Moore put forward the case of Hollsworth v Right Price Carpets and Furniture Ltd case reference 0192/07 as authority for the proposition that a failure to call a relevant witness could justify making an award of costs to the claimant. As the tribunal considers that the witnesses not called were in the category of witnesses who would be called purely to rerun the investigation, the tribunal does not consider that any adverse inference should be drawn from the respondent’s failure to call such witnesses. The tribunal considered that sufficient witnesses were called to deal with the Burchell tests. The tribunal also noted that Mr Moore indicated that he was not making an application for costs and in the circumstances, as the Hollsworth decision was primarily a decision on the issue of costs; the tribunal distinguishes it as not being relevant to the circumstances pertaining in this case.

16. Did the respondent subject the claimant to a detriment on grounds related to his trade union activities?

There was no overall evidence of an actual comparator against which the claimant’s treatment could be measured. There were sundry attempts by Mr Moore to indicate that in relation to the investigation of private activities, the claimant had been differently treated to Mr Martin who played in a band and other members of building control who were not asked about personal activities. By virtue of the case of Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC, the comparator must be someone whose circumstances were the same or not materially different from those of the claimant to be a valid comparator. We would not accept Mr Martin as a valid actual comparator in this matter even in respect of this one issue as his circumstances were materially different. Whilst the building control service itself was initially under investigation, Mr Martin was not. The tribunal considers that this is a material difference which invalidates Mr Martin as an actual comparator. The tribunal therefore constructed a hypothetical comparator who was a person in all respects in the same position as the claimant except for the fact that the hypothetical comparator was not a person engaged in trade union activities. Would the treatment have been any different? The tribunal considers that the treatment would not have been any different. The tribunal considers that the sole or main purpose of the investigations and disciplinary procedures carried out irrespective of the eventual results, were directed to addressing conduct on the part of the claimant. Whilst the tribunal accepts that there was a background of considerable industrial difficulty in the respondent’s undertaking, the tribunal was not able to in any way connect this background to the trade union activities of the claimant except insofar that it was in his capacity as a representative to his members, that he indulged in inappropriate and at times intimidatory language. The tribunal considers that the respondent would have had a duty to investigate any worker who

indulged in such behaviour, irrespective of their status and whether or not they were protected under any statutory protection applying in this jurisdiction.

17. Did the claimant suffer any detriment?

The claimant was subjected to a very lengthy investigation and particularly in respect of the The Kremlin affair, the tribunal considers that this investigation could have been completed considerably more rapidly than the personnel in the Council actually concluded it. The tribunal has no doubt that the length of the investigatory and disciplinary processes (and particularly the fact that they overlapped on 26 September 2008), must undoubtedly have placed the claimant under a great strain but does not consider this arose because of his Trade Union activities.

The claimant was subjected to a precautionary suspension that was in excess of that permitted by the respondent’s disciplinary procedures. Although the respondent did review the suspension and lifted it on conditions, the tribunal has no doubt that it fed the claimant’s feelings of strain, because he was not, for example, entitled to take his children to activities on Belfast City Council property without the consent of his line manager. Again, there was no credible evidence that this was because of his Trade Union activities.

18. A direct result of his suspension was that the claimant was not entitled to enter Belfast City Council property and not entitled to use Belfast City Council facilities (including computer facilities to carry out his Trade Union business). However, the claimant was not otherwise prohibited from carrying out his Union activities during the suspension and the tribunal does not consider that the precautionary suspension constitutes a detriment for the purposes of Article 73. The tribunal has also noted that it heard no evidence from the claimant’s Trade Union to support the contention that the claimant suffered a detriment by being unable to carry out his Trade Union activities. On the contrary, the written evidence before the tribunal was to the effect that the claimant had had full support from his Trade Union throughout the

process. Presumably, the claimant could have contacted his members with the assistance of his Trade Union.

19. The claimant also complained about the fact that an investigation was carried out into the number of hours he spent on Trade Union activity in the course of his employment. The results of the investigation showed that the claimant was allowed to carry out his Trade Union activity, even representing across Departments, and that his own service (Building Control) had no difficulty with his performance of his own duties as a Building Control Surveyor. We do not accept that an employer is not allowed to enquire into how a person (even one with a protected status) carries out his duties. We consider that this was an enquiry that was carried out fairly, no disciplinary penalty resulted to the claimant and as such we do not consider that this constituted a detriment.

20. Was the action taken by the respondent for the purpose of deterring the claimant from carrying out Trade Union activities?

The tribunal accepts that there was a background of industrial difficulty in West Belfast but could not find any objective evidence of a connection between the Trade Union activities of the claimant and the disciplinary actions taken by the respondent. The tribunal is satisfied that the sole and main purpose of the respondent’s action was to deal with the claimant’s alleged misconduct, some of which he had admitted. In reaching its decision the tribunal has had regard to the three fold test of BHS-v-Burchell [1978] IRLR UKEAT108. The respondent received complaints which it had a duty to investigate. We consider that there was enough evidence before the respondent to justify the respondent’s having a reasonable belief in the claimant’s guilt. We also find that the respondent carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. We found nothing in the actions of the respondent in either the disciplinary or the investigatory phases of each complaint that suggested that the claimant was being subjected to a detriment on the ground of his Trade Union activities. We have already indicated that we had deep concerns about the length of time it took the respondent to carry out these investigations. We consider that they could have been carried out considerably more swiftly. However, we do not consider that the reason for delays was on the basis that the respondent wished to cause the claimant a detriment on the grounds of his Trade Union activities. Taken as a whole, there was nothing to suggest that the claimant was not being given ample opportunity to carry out his Trade Union activities.

21. We found that the respondent certainly attempted to augment the allegation facing the claimant on 11 November 2008 but that the claimant and his representative resisted this. As no compensation is being awarded for the Article 73 claim, we do not consider that any compensation arises as a result of the respondent’s attempted to augment the allegations.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 1- 4, 8-12 and 15 March 2010, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> McGuigan v Belfast City Council [2010] NIIT 183_09IT (14 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/183_09IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 183_9IT, [2010] NIIT 183_09IT

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions