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 >> Peters v South Eastern Health and Socia... [2016] NIIT 02630_15IT (26 May 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2016/02630_15IT.html Cite as: [2016] NIIT 02630_15IT, [2016] NIIT 2630_15IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 2630/15
CLAIMANT: Jo-Anne Peters
RESPONDENT: South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust
DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
1. Each of the following claims is dismissed because it was not brought within the relevant (primary or secondary) statutory time limit:
Act (5): The omission to transfer the claimant's role/post to a different department.
Act (6): The omission to allow the claimant to work from home.
Act (7): The claimant's claim in respect of the alleged failure to carry out a risk assessment.
Act (8): The claim in respect of the alleged failure to set realistic targets.
2. All of the other claims in these proceedings were brought within the relevant primary or secondary time-limit.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr Samuel Martins.
The respondent was represented by Mr C Hamill, Barrister-at-Law.
REASONS
1. I announced my decision at the end of the hearing. At the same time, I gave oral reasons for that decision.
2. During the course of the hearing of this PHR, Mr Martins helpfully provided a comprehensive list of all of the Acts which the claimant was still wishing to pursue in these proceedings. (She has abandoned pursuit of some of the Acts which were specified or referred to in one or other of the claim forms).
3. In the present context, the word " Act":
(A) refers to an act or an omission; and
(B) refers only to an act or omission in respect of which compensation is claimed (as distinct from an act or omission which is of merely evidential or contextual significance).
(C) The Acts which the claimant wished to pursue were as follows:
(1) The decision to implement the Capability Procedure.
(2) The demotion.
(3) The process which led up to the demotion.
(4) The alleged mishandling of the October 2015 grievance.
(5) The omission to transfer the claimant's post to a different department.
(6) The omission to allow the claimant to work from home.
(7) The alleged failure to carry out a risk assessment.
(8) The alleged failure to set realistic targets.
(9) During the period after the claimant's demotion, the alleged failure to take proper account of the Occupational Health Advisor's advice and recommendations.
4. At the end of this PHR, this case was the subject of detailed case management. A record of that Case Management Discussion will be produced separately, in due course.
Employment Judge:
Date and place of hearing: 17 May 2016, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
