THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	140/06

CLAIMANT:			Margaret Norton			

RESPONDENT:		Henderson Foodservices Limited		

DECISION ON A REVIEW APPLICATION 

The decision of the tribunal is that the claim which was part rejected should be accepted in full upon review in the interests of justice.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman:			Mrs P Smyth (Chairman sitting alone)	

	

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr M Potter, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Sheena Murphy, Solicitors. 

1.	The claimant lodged a claim with the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal on 18 January 2006.  The Chairman who considered the claim decided that it should be part rejected insofar as it related to a claim for discrimination in the supply of goods and services.  This decision was based on the Chairman’s understanding of the nature of the claim as it was set out in the claim form.

2.	At the review hearing Mr Potter explained the basis of the complaint which was rejected by the Chairman.  The claimant resigned from her employment with the respondent in March 2005.  After the expiry of a restrictive covenant which was contained in her contract of employment the claimant obtained employment with a company called Aghadowy Food Service.  The claimant’s new role related to sales as had her previous role with the respondent.  As part of her new employment she approached a company known as Old Park Foods in order to arrange the supply to the company of an order for turkey.  The turkey would be provided by her new employer to Shorts Bombardier and was an important order for the company.  The claimant dealt with the owner of Old Park Foods, Mr Gareth Duffy, and he agreed to provide the order to her.  One week later Mr Duffy told the claimant that as a result of communication received from the respondent he would be unable to supply the turkey because he did not wish to jeopardise his business with the respondent.  It is therefore the claimant’s case that the communication from the respondent to Old Park Foods constituted an act of victimisation because the claimant had lodged proceedings against the respondent.

3.	Having heard from Mr Potter and the nature of the complaint having been made clear to me in my view the decision to part reject the claim should be revoked upon review and accepted in full.  It is now clear that this is not a claim for discrimination in the provision of goods or services but is a complaint of victimisation against the respondent.   

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	7 December 2006, Belfast.		

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: