THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	03702/99SD

APPLICANT:		Wendy Larmour

RESPONDENT:		N Moore

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the applicant was not discriminated against on grounds of her sex.  Furthermore, the tribunal orders that the applicant pay the respondent the sum of £100.00 costs.
Appearances:
The applicant did not attend, nor was she represented.
The respondent appeared in person and was not represented.

1.	The applicant did not appear at the hearing, nor was she represented.  No communication had been received by the applicant to indicate that she did not intend to pursue her claim.  Accordingly, the tribunal decided to dispose of the application in her absence, and before doing so, the tribunal considered her originating application and the notice of appearance.

2.	The tribunal heard evidence from the respondent which it accepted without reservation.  Accordingly, the tribunal found the following facts proved on a balance of probabilities:-

(a)	In or about 1999, the respondent was in need of the services of a childminder for her three children.  Having been made aware of an advertisement in a local newspaper, the respondent made an appointment to meet the applicant in her own home.

(b)	The respondent was accompanied by her husband and three children at this meeting.

(c)	In response to a query from the respondent’s husband as to whether or not the applicant was a registered childminder, the applicant stated that she was, although no documents verifying this were ever produced.

(d)	Both the respondent, and her husband had reservations about the suitability of the applicant.  They were particularly concerned when the applicant’s own child produced toys which were covered in paint, and the applicant informed them that the child had got access to tins of paint and a tin of varnish and had made a mess.  The applicant did not consider that a child should be able to get access to paint and varnish for reasons of safety.

Furthermore, the respondent did not find the applicant to be forthcoming about information, and in short, both she and her husband did not have a good ‘gut feeling’ about the applicant’s suitability.

(e)	Following the meeting, the respondent asked the applicant for references.  The applicant telephoned the respondent with the names of two potential referees.  One of those could not be contacted, and the other explained that the applicant had not been a childminder for her, but simply an occasional babysitter when the applicant was a teenager.  This reinforced the respondent’s concerns.

(f)	The respondent telephoned the applicant and said she was going on holiday and would get back to her in two weeks.  The respondent candidly told the tribunal that she had indicated to the applicant that she probably would have the job, but this was out of a reluctance to have to confront the applicant with the true position.

(g)	The respondent discussed her concerns with a colleague, who had experience of registered childminders.  The respondent was informed that if the applicant genuinely was registered, she would have produced a number of documents to verify the position.  The tribunal accepts that this convinced the respondent that the applicant was unsuitable.

(h)	Shortly afterwards, the respondent was contacted by her cousin who was having driving lessons from the applicant.  She suggested in no uncertain terms that the applicant would not be a suitable person to care for the respondent’s children.  In addition, she did inform the respondent that the applicant was pregnant.

(i)	The respondent decided that she was going to contact Social Services and obtain the name of a registered childminder in her area.  Accordingly, she decided to confront the applicant with the news that the respondent would not be giving her the job.

(j)	The respondent did telephone the applicant and informed her of her decision.  The applicant began to scream at the respondent over the telephone, and made remarks such as “If I mind your kids they won’t want to come home to you”.  The respondent was extremely concerned at such a remark being made, and the applicant’s behaviour confirmed the respondent’s reservations about the suitability of her as a childminder.  In an attempt to placate the applicant, the respondent said to her that it shouldn’t matter so much to her since was going to have a baby of her own soon.  

The tribunal is satisfied, that the reason this remark was made was to try and calm the situation, and was in no way indicative of the reasons for the respondent’s decision not to employ the applicant.

3.	The tribunal is therefore entirely satisfied that the applicant’s pregnancy was not the reason for the respondent’s decision not to employ her, and accordingly the application is dismissed.

4.	The respondent applied for costs, given that she has already run up a large legal bill defending this case.  The tribunal’s power to award costs is limited, and may only be exercised in the specific circumstances set out in Rule 12 of Schedule 1 of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996.

The tribunal does consider that the applicant has conducted the proceedings unreasonably, by failing to appear to conduct her case, or to inform the respondent or the office that she did not intend to appear.  Accordingly, the tribunal makes an award of costs in the sum of £100.00 against the applicant.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: