THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	00677/00

APPLICANT:	Edel Armstrong

RESPONDENT:	James Thompson 

DECISION
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the Applicant’s complaint of unlawful sex discrimination should be dismissed.    
Appearances:
The Applicant did not appear and was not represented
The Respondent appeared in person.  

The Tribunal Found the Following Facts

1.	The Applicant’s Originating Application, presented on 3 April 2000, complained of Sexual Discrimination. On her Originating Application, the Applicant indicated that she was represented by Dermot Walker & Co, Solicitors. The Applicant gave no telephone number at section 1 of the Originating Application. By letter dated 14 July 2001, Dermot Walker & Co., Solicitors, came off record, stating that they were unable to take further instructions from the Applicant. When the Applicant did not appear before the Tribunal, and was not represented, the Tribunal was therefore unable to contact her further, but considered the complaint as expressed on the Originating Applicant pursuant to Rule 9(3) of Schedule 1 of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations (NI) 1996 [“the 1996 Rules”]. Thus, the Tribunal considered the Applicant’s complaint that she had been employed by the Respondent from 2 October 1999 to 15 January 2000 on his market stall at Union Place, Derry; that she was paid £5 per day for this work; that throughout the course of her employment the Respondent had made comments “of an explicit sexual nature” which embarrassed her and which she resisted; that the Respondent had asked her to have sexual intercourse with him; and that the Respondent had approached her at a night club in January 2000 and made obscene suggestions to the Applicant in front of her friends, which latter incident caused her to leave her employment with the Respondent. At the time of these alleged incidents, the Applicant would have been sixteen years of age.

2.	The Respondent gave evidence on oath that he never employed the Applicant. The Respondent’s evidence was that he had suffered from alcohol dependency from circa 1995 and – owing to this problem – had given up the market stall in July 1998. At that time, the trader beside the Respondent’s stall, Stephen Ryan, took on the management of the Respondent’s stall, and thereafter bought the stock and the licence to trade, which had been issued by Derry City Council. Thus, from 2 October 1999 to 15 January 2000, the stall was operated entirely by Mr Ryan, against whom the Applicant made no complaint whatsoever. The Respondent’s evidence was that the allegations contained in the Originating Application were a complete fabrication by a sixteen-year-old girl, and a serious slur on his character as a fifty-one year old man. Mr Thompson stated that he had been a respected trader in Derry for twenty years. The Respondent’s evidence was that it was ridiculous to suggest that anyone would work for £5 per day, and he expressly contradicted and rebutted each of the allegations made out by the Applicant.

3.	Moreover, Mr Thompson stated that Mr Ryan had never employed the Applicant, and the Tribunal read in evidence a letter from Mr Ryan dated 5 June 2000, which corroborated this assertion.

THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

4.	Having considered the Originating Application, Notice of Appearance, and all the evidence before it (oral and documentary), the Tribunal unanimously determines as follows;

(i)	The Tribunal has been mindful of its duty, generally and in particular pursuant to Article 6 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, to provide both parties to this application with a fair hearing and trial of the issues.  The Tribunal wishes to restate that it has borne this duty in mind throughout the hearing of this complaint, particularly in view of the fact that the Applicant was not present at the hearing before the Tribunal.  

(ii)	The Tribunal has considered the Originating Application thoroughly and in its entirety, pursuant to its duty under Rule 9(3) of the 1996 Rules. The Tribunal unanimously and unreservedly accepts the Respondent’s evidence that the complaints, and each of them, are unfounded. The determination of the Tribunal is that the Applicant was never employed by the Respondent, or by Mr Stephen Ryan, and was never subjected to the treatment alleged. The Tribunal was very impressed by the credibility of the Respondent, and the vehemence with which he rebutted the Applicant’s complaint. On this basis, it unanimously dismisses the Applicant’s complaint of unlawful sex discrimination.

(iii)	No further or other Order is made.

____________________________________
CHAIRMAN

Date and place of hearing:  9 May 2002, Londonderry

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: