Palmer v Belfast Institute of Further & Higher Education  (Preliminary Hearing)  (15 December 2003)

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 1852/02

APPLICANT:	James Palmer

RESPONDENT:	Belfast Institute of Further & Higher Education

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the application had been made outside the prescribed time limits and that it was not just and equitable to exercise its discretion under Article 76(5) Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

Appearances:

The applicant was represented by Mr N Griffin of NIPSA.

The respondent was represented by Mr O’Loan Solicitor of Tughan & Co., Solicitors.

1.	The originating application was received in the Office of Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal on 6 August 2002.  In paragraph 12 in reply to the question “When did the matter of which you were complaining begin”?  He stated “January 1995 to present”.

2.	A job evaluation scheme was carried out in 1997 and the applicant’s grading stayed the same whereas his supervisor, a female, post went up two grades.  In disgust he says he lodged an appeal.

3.	His appeal against his grading took place in September 1999 and he was moved up one grade but was still one grade below his comparator, a female.  However, there was a fundamental difference between his ‘comparator’ and him in that his comparator was his supervisor and therefore the provision of Article 7 of the 1976 Order would not be satisfied.

The applicant did not lodge an appeal against the award of his grading.

4.	In March 2000 he requested his post be re-evaluated.  A re-evaluation took place but his grade did not change.  He appealed against this evaluation but was unsuccessful.

5.	Mr O’Loan submitted that there were 3 discrete acts complained of:-

(i)	Job Evaluation decision in 1997.

(ii)	Job Evaluation decision in 1999.

(iii)	Job Evaluation in March 2000.

6.	The tribunal were of the unanimous opinion that the matters complained of by the applicant were separate and discrete acts and did not form part of a continuing process.  The application to the tribunal was not received until 6 August 2002.  The application was out of time and having regard to the substantial delay, it would not be just and equitable to exercise its discretion under Article 76(5) of the 1976 Order.  The tribunal therefore do not have jurisdiction and the application is dismissed.

Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 15 December 2003, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: