[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Kinnearand others v Manpower (on behalf of BT Reta... [2017] NIIT 01477_16IT (06 March 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2017/01477_16IT.html Cite as: [2017] NIIT 1477_16IT, [2017] NIIT 01477_16IT

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

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 

CASE REFS: 1477/16

- 1679/16

 

 

 

CLAIMANTS: Kinnear and Others

 

 

RESPONDENT: Manpower (on behalf of BT Retail)

 

 

 

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

(A) In every relevant case other than the Perry and Reen cases the claimant has been granted leave to amend his/her claim form so as to include a claim that the Act specified in the claim form as currently drafted also constitutes a breach of contract.

 

(B) Each relevant claimant has also been granted leave to amend his/her claim form so as to include a claim in respect of an additional Act. That additional Act is the allegation that the respondent changed the system of work which the relevant claimant had to carry out. (According to each relevant claimant, as a result of that change, it became much more difficult for him/her to obtain the relevant bonus and/or to obtain as big a bonus as he/she would otherwise have obtained. In respect of that Act (the change of system):

 

(i) Unlawful deduction of wages is a cause of action in all the relevant cases.

 

(ii) In all relevant cases other than the Perry and Reen cases, breach of contract is also a cause of action.

 

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Buggy

Appearances:

The claimants were represented by Ms S Agnew, Barrister-at-Law.

The respondent was represented by Mr M McEvoy, Barrister-at-Law.




REASONS

1.             I announced my decision at the end of the hearing. At the same time, I gave oral reasons for my decision.

 

2. The cases which are "relevant" in the context of this PHR are the cases of all the claimants whose surnames and Case Reference Numbers appear below:

 

Claimant CRN

 

Armstrong 1477/16IT

Auterson 1678/16IT

Bratton 1676/16IT

Campbell 1478/16IT

Clarke 1479/16IT

Corrigan 1480/16IT

Devlin 1481/16IT

Gallagher 1482/16IT

Gilbride 1483/16IT

Johnston 1484/16IT

Kinnear 1485/16IT

Lynch 1588/16IT

McCaffrey 1486/16IT

Permaul 1679/16IT

Perry 1674/16IT

Reen 1487/16IT

Smyth 1677/16IT

Smyth 1488/16IT

Turley 1490/16IT

White 1675/16IT

Wylie 1489/16IT

 

3. Mr Perry and Mr Reen cannot make a complaint of breach of contract in the industrial tribunals because each of them continues to be employed by the respondent.

 

4. This Pre-Hearing Review ("PHR") had initially been scheduled to consider the applications for amendment which had been set out in an email which had been sent on behalf of the claimant on 16 December 2016.

 

5. However, during the course of this hearing, the claimants' applications for leave to amend were modified, in light of the discussion of the issues which took place during this hearing.

 

6. In this Decision, an "Act" means an act or omission in respect of which compensation is claimed (as distinct from an act or omission which is of merely contextual or evidential significance).

 

7. In this Decision, a "cause of action" means the legal basis upon which a remedy is sought in respect of any particular Act.

 

8. A complaint in respect of the reduction of the amount of available bonus is already contained in the claim form, as currently drafted, but the only cause of action currently cited in respect of that Act, in the claim form as originally presented, was "unlawful deduction of wages". At my invitation, Mr McEvoy realistically accepted that, in every relevant case other than the Perry and Reen cases, the claimant should be granted leave to amend his/her claim form so as to cite "breach of contract" as an additional cause of action in respect of that Act.

 

9. During the PHR, Ms Agnew realistically narrowed the scope of the application for leave to amend in respect of additional Acts (Acts other than the Act which has already been specified in the claim form).

 

10. Ultimately, the only additional Act in respect of which leave to amend was sought was the Act which is referred to at paragraph (B) above.

 

11. From now onwards, in each relevant case other than the Perry and Reen cases, the claim form will be deemed to include an assertion that the causes of action in respect of the Act referred to at paragraph (A) above include breach of contract. From now onwards, in each of those cases other than the Perry and Reen cases, the response will be deemed to include a denial that there has been any such breach of contract.

 

12. From now onwards, in every relevant case, the claim form will be deemed to include the following assertions: (1) that the Act specified at paragraph (B) above did occur. (2) That that Act constituted an unlawful deduction of wages. From now onwards, in each of those cases, the response will be deemed to include a denial in respect of each of those assertions.

 

13. From now onwards, in every relevant case other than the Perry and Reen cases:

 

(1)           The claim form will be deemed to include an assertion that the Act specified at paragraph (B) above also constituted a breach of contract.

 

(2)           The response will be deemed to include a denial of that "breach of contract" assertion.

 

 

 

 

Employment Judge:

 

 

Date and place of hearing: 6 February 2017, Belfast.

 

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: