 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions >> Campbell v South Eastern Education and Li... South Eastern Education and Li... [2013] NIFET 00088_12FET (24 April 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIFET/2013/88_12FET.html Cite as: [2013] NIFET 00088_12FET, [2013] NIFET 88_12FET |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
CASE REFS: 88/12 FET
1459/12
CLAIMANT: Harry Campbell
RESPONDENT: South Eastern Education and Library Board
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the claimant’s claims of discrimination and harassment on the grounds of disability and religious belief, and of victimisation, be dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr D Buchanan
Members: Mr P Archer
Mr A Henry
Appearances:
The claimant did not appear and was not represented.
The respondent was represented by Ms A Finnegan, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Education & Library Boards’ Solicitors.
1 The claimant did not appear at the hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that he received Notice of Hearing. Insofar as he had concerns about the venue, he had previously been offered the opportunity to apply for a hearing at another centre. In any event, the respondent’s representative informed us that he was at his place of work on the day of the hearing.
2 The Tribunal dismissed his claims as set out above.
Before doing so:-
(i) it considered the contents of his claim form, the contents of a witness statement he had provided, and the documents in the bundle; and
(ii) heard sworn evidence from the following witnesses on behalf of the respondent:-
Mr Nicky McBride, Chief Administrative Officer of the respondent Board, who had carried out an investigation into the claimant’s grievances, which were essentially the same as the claimant’s claim to the Tribunal;
Mr George Blackam and Ms Lisa Cross, Senior Administrative Officers with the Board; and
Mr Alan Brannagan, Assistant Financial Accountant with the Board, and formerly an Administrative Officer with line management responsibility for the claimant at the relevant time.
3(i) There is no evidence to support the claimant’s allegations. An issue had arisen with regard to possible irregularities in his recording of his arrival at work for flexi-time purposes and this was dealt with by management in a reasonable and proper way. However, this incident led to the claimant making completely baseless allegations of discrimination, harassment and victimisation against work colleagues.
(ii) In reaching our conclusion the Tribunal has born in mind Article 63A of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, as amended, dealing with the burden of proof, and the guidance given to Tribunals on the interpretation of the statutory provisions shifting the burden of proof given by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Guidance) and Others v Wong; Chamberlain Solicitors and Another v Emokpae; and Brunel University v Webster [2005] IRLR 258. This guidance is set out in full at an annex to the judgment in the Igen case, and we do not repeat it here.
We have also considered the more recent decisions of HM Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland in Curley v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Another [2009] NICA 8 and Nelson v Newry & Mourne District Council [2009] NICA 24.
In the former, Coghlin LJ at Paragraph 16 of his judgment emphasised the need for Tribunals hearing cases of this nature to keep firmly in mind that such claims are grounded upon an allegation of discrimination (in that case religious discrimination). This was emphasised by Girvan LJ in Paragraph 24 of the judgment in the latter case.
4(i) This case should never have been brought and has wasted judicial time, not to mention the valuable time of the respondent’s witnesses, who have also been subjected to unnecessary stress and anxiety as a result of serious, unfounded allegations made against them.
(ii) The respondent’s representative indicated that it will be seeking costs, and in the absence of agreement on costs between the parties, the matter will be re-listed to determine any such application.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 15 April 2013, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: