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 >> Peifer v St Patrick's and St Brigid's C... Western Education & Library Bo... [2011] NIIT 01504_05IT (19 October 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01504_05IT.html Cite as: [2011] NIIT 01504_05IT, [2011] NIIT 1504_5IT |
||
[New search] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1504/05
CLAIMANT: James Robert Peifer
RESPONDENTS: 1. St Patrick’s and St Brigid’s College
2. Western Education & Library Board
REASONS FOR DECISION
Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President: Mr N Kelly
Members: Mrs T Madden
Mr E Grant
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and represented himself.
The respondents were represented by Mr A Colmer, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by The Education & Library Board’s Legal Service.
1. The claims against both respondents were dismissed in an oral decision delivered at approximately 12.00 noon on the first day of the hearing, 17 October 2011.
2. I started the hearing by briefly reminding both parties that the claims concerned allegations of direct gender discrimination in the operation of a selection procedure for a Classroom Assistant post conducted by the respondents.
3. The claimant had not been shortlisted for interview for one permanent post and for one temporary post. The successful candidate for the permanent post was a female and the successful candidate for the temporary post was a male.
4. The claimant also alleged direct gender discrimination in the identification of reserve candidates on the basis that only female candidates remained in the competition at that stage.
5. Both parties were reminded of the decision of the pre-hearing review, that the claim was a claim of direct gender discrimination and not a claim of indirect gender discrimination. The claimant was specifically reminded that he had been told in the pre-hearing review hearing that it was possible that the nature of the criteria might provide corroborative evidence for direct gender discrimination and that he was free to pursue that in evidence and in his submissions.
6. The claimant was sworn and commenced giving evidence shortly after 10.30 am. His evidence was disjointed and consisted largely of references to other claims, speculation and legal submissions. He was repeatedly directed to give evidence. He was then directed to compare his application form with those of the successful candidates. He was also directed, repeatedly, to address the issue of direct gender discrimination. He seemed unable to follow these directions. The claimant stated on several occasions that he had been concentrating on his numerous appeals to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court. On that basis, he stated that he was not in a position to put forward a reasoned argument or to deal with the current claims. I pointed out to him that he had had six years to prepare for this hearing and that the overriding objective including a requirement for cases to be progressed expeditiously.
7. The tribunal rose at one point to allow the claimant ten minutes to consider his position. When the tribunal hearing resumed, the claimant briefly attempted to continue, but again stated that he was not in a position to proceed. He stated he would be in a position to proceed if he was given (unspecified) time to prepare his case.
8. Mr Colmer, for the respondents, indicated that this had not been the first time that the claimant had acted in this manner and objected to any postponement being granted.
9. After conferring, the tribunal ruled that it would not be appropriate to postpone or further delay the resolution of these claims. The respondents were entitled to have the matter dealt with and there had already been considerable delay. The claimant then stated that there was no point in continuing.
10. The claims against the respondents were dismissed in the absence of any proven facts on which a reasonable tribunal could properly infer unlawful discrimination. The claimant had failed to discharge his burden of proof, despite having had some six years within which to prepare his case.
Vice President:
Date and place of hearing: 17 October 2011, Limavady
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
