6977_09IT
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 >> Mulligan v Iceland Foods Limited [2010] NIIT 6977_09IT (20 October 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/6977_09IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 6977_9IT, [2010] NIIT 6977_09IT |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 6977/09
CLAIMANT: Paul Mulligan
RESPONDENT: Iceland Foods Limited
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claim is dismissed in its entirety.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mrs Ó Murray
Members: Mr J E Martin
Mr N Wilkinson
Appearances:
The claimant did not appear and was not represented
The respondent was represented
by Mr R Dowd, Barrister-at-Law instructed by
D W F LLP.
Reasons
1. The following decision was delivered orally
at the hearing:
“The claimant’s claim is for failure by the respondent to allow him
to exercise his right to be accompanied to a grievance hearing on 3 September
2009.
2. The right to be accompanied is contained in the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 at Articles12 and 13. Under that legislation the companion must be a Trade Union official or a co-worker employed by the respondent. The remedy is two 2 weeks’ pay.
3.
The claimant’s mother indicated
in a letter of 4 October 2010 to the tribunal office, that the claimant was ill
and unable to attend today’s hearing. The claimant was advised by the tribunal
office by email and voice mail yesterday that today’s case remained listed and
that he, or someone on his behalf, would need to attend with medical evidence
in relation to his fitness to attend.
4.
The claimant did not appear today
and nor did anyone on his behalf. There has been no communication from the
claimant nor from anyone on his behalf to the tribunal office nor to the
respondent.
5.
The respondent’s representative
Mr Dowd, invited the tribunal to strike out the claimant’s case. As this case
has a history of a previous hearing that was adjourned on the day due to the
claimant’s inability to attend which was notified on that day, and there is a
history of non-communication from the claimant, we decided to proceed to hear
the case on the merits under Rule 27. In deciding to proceed we have borne in
mind the over-riding objective and the very limited value of this claim.
6.
We considered the claimant’s
claim form and the evidence from Mr Morley for the respondent. Having
considered the evidence both oral and documentary we are satisfied that Mr
Baxter, the proposed companion of the claimant at the grievance hearing, was
neither an employee of the respondent nor a Trade Union official. The claimant
indeed confirmed this in his claim form. We are therefore satisfied that the
claimant’s claim for breach of the right to be accompanied must fail and we
hereby dismiss the case on that basis.
7. We decline, however, the respondent’s application for costs. Whilst we are content that the claimant’s claim appears to have been misconceived, we are not convinced that it would be appropriate to award costs in the circumstances in this case. Costs are the exception in tribunal cases and there is already a Costs Order extant against the claimant and we have been able to proceed to decide this case today. On that basis therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion to make a further award of costs against the claimant”.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 7 October 2010, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: