THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:  3515/01	

APPLICANT:       	Linda May Mason		

RESPONDENT:    	1.   Police Authority for Northern Ireland	
			2.   Royal Ulster Constabulary 
DECISION

The unanimous finding of the Tribunal is that the application was not presented within the specified time limit.  It is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case for the tribunal to consider this complaint and time is extended.
Appearances:
The applicant attended and was unrepresented. 
The respondent was represented by Miss Harkness BL, instructed by the Crown Solicitors Office.
1.	The applicant was employed by the respondent from 5 June 1972 until she was medically retired on 31 August 2001.  Her originating application was lodged on 26 October 2001 and at paragraph 12 of that application the applicant stated that the matter complained of took place on 2 July 2001.  The case therefore came before the tribunal to deal with the following preliminary issues:

“(i)	was the application presented within the specified time limit.

(ii)	if not, is it just and equitable, in all the circumstances of the case, for an Industrial Tribunal to consider this complaint despite the fact that it is out of time?”	

2.	The applicant gave evidence that she suffered from arthritis and required to have a computer to enable her to continue to work.  She stated that her medical retirement was confirmed to her on 2 July 2001 but she remained in the employment of the respondent until 31 August 2001.  The applicant argued that she did not think that she could take any action against the respondent until her employment had ended.  The applicant gave evidence that she went to the Equality Commission and had an appointment with them on 8 October 2001 at which time she was informed of the time limits for presenting her claim.  The applicant stated that had the equipment been supplied to her up to the end of her employment she would have continued to work although she was absent through illness from 7 March 2001.  She stated that she did not consider taking proceedings until her employment ended and she realised that she was a medical retiree.  The applicant stated that in March 2001 she did not consider taking proceedings and did not do so until the end of her employment.  Miss Harkness argued that time runs from 2 July 2001 and therefore the application is out of time.  She also argued in the alternative that the date of  7 March 2001 when the applicant went off work could also be the relevant date because she left work with a view to retirement and it would no longer be reasonable for the respondents to have to make adjustments from that date.  In either event she argued that the application is out of time.  Miss Harkness further stated that lack of prejudice to the respondents was not a determining factor and that the time limits are set for finality.  She stated that there had been no lack of co-operation by the respondents and no obstacles stood in the way of the applicant proceeding with her case.

3.	The tribunal considered the late case in the light of the evidence presented.  Firstly, we were not prepared to say that the relevant date was 7 March 2001 in view of the applicant’s evidence that had a computer been provided after that date she would have returned to work.  The tribunal found that the relevant date was 2 July 2001 as stated by the applicant in her application.  This was the date on which her medical retirement was confirmed and the tribunal found it to be the appropriate date from which time should run.  The application lodged on 26 October 2001 was therefore presented outside the relevant time limits.

4.	The tribunal took into account the reasons submitted for the delays by the applicant.  We accepted the evidence of the applicant that she genuinely misunderstood that she could take no action until her employment ended at the end of August 2001.  The tribunal also took into account the delay in her obtaining an appointment with the Equality Commission to 8 October 2001 we are satisfied that the applicant did not understand the requirement of the time limit and therefore it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to enable this application to proceed.  In respect of the question of prejudice we took into account the relatively short delay caused by the applicant’s misunderstanding, the nature of the case being presented and the necessary cogency of evidence.  We did not accept that there is prejudice to the respondents so as to prevent this application proceeding.  Our reasons for extending the time limit are based on the genuine misunderstanding of the applicant in relation to the relevant time limits and the application may therefore proceed.  

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:   17 June 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: