Coyle v Unibol Ltd (NI) & Ors [2002] NIIT 3160_01 (25 June 2002)

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Coyle v Unibol Ltd (NI) & Ors [2002] NIIT 3160_01 (25 June 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/3160_01.html
Cite as: [2002] NIIT 3160_1, [2002] NIIT 3160_01

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


     
    THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

    CASE REF: 3160/01

    APPLICANT: Patrick Coyle

    RESPONDENTS: 1. Unibol Limited (NI)

    2. California Software Corporation

    3. Unibol Inc
    4. Unicomp

    DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

    The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the tribunal's jurisdiction is not precluded by Article 229 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996 ("the Order") as amended.

    Appearances:

    The applicant was represented by Mr Odhran Stockman, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Northern Ireland Law Centre.

    The first and second named respondents were represented by Mr Eugene O'Loan, Solicitor of Tughan & Co, Solicitors.

    The third and fourth named respondents were not represented at this hearing.

  1. These reasons are given in summary form.

  2. The purpose of this hearing was to determine the following preliminary issue:-

    3. "Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the applicant's complaint in view of Article 239 of the [Order] as amended with regard to his place of employment".
  3. There are four respondents to these proceedings because there is an issue as to the identity of the applicant's employer, at various times which are relevant for the purpose of these proceedings.

  4. The applicant's complaints in these proceedings all relate to various acts and omissions on the part of his employer:-

    5. (1) He complains of breaches of his contract of employment.

    (2) He complains of unauthorised deductions, contrary to Part IV of the Order.

    (3) He complaints of constructive dismissal, contrary to Part IX of the Order.

  5. For the first and second respondents, Mr O'Loan concedes that the preliminary issue identified above should be determined in favour of the applicant. Mr O'Loan's ? the third and fourth respondents.

  6. However, Mr Stockman has convinced us that there is nothing in Article 239 which effects the jurisdiction of a tribunal to consider the applicant's complaints.

  7. Article 239 of the Order (as substituted by Article 31 of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 provides that certain designated provisions do not apply to employment if, under his contract of employment, the relevant employee ordinarily works outside Northern Ireland. Part IV and Part IX of the Order are not among the specified provisions and similarly, breach of contract claims are not included among the specified provisions.

  8. Mr Stockman made it clear that the applicant reserved his position on the question of whether or not he may, due to a point in the proceedings, which to make a claim in respect of the costs incurred in connection with the determination of this preliminary issue.

    9. ____________________________________

    Date and place of hearing: 25 June 2002, Belfast

    Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/3160_01.html