THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:  1528/07

CLAIMANT:			Kathleen Beckett

RESPONDENT:		MCCO NI Ltd

DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that it has no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim as a conciliated settlement was reached between the parties with the assistance of the Labour Relations Agency on 17 December 2007.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:		Mrs Ó Murray
Members:		Mrs K Elliott
			Mrs B Heaney

Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person.
The respondent did not appear nor was it represented.

THE CLAIM

 1.	The claimant’s claim was for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay.

THE ISSUE

 2.	The issue to be determined was whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim given the existence of a conciliated settlement reached with the assistance of the Labour Relations Agency.  

FINDINGS OF FACT

3.0	The tribunal found the following facts relevant to the issue before it.

3.1	By Notice of Hearing issued to the parties on 30 October 2007 the substantive claim was listed for hearing for the 20 March 2008.

3.2	The claimant and respondent reached a conciliated settlement on 17 December 2007 with the assistance of the Labour Relations Agency.  

3.3	On the 14 January 2008 the Labour Relations Agency sent a fax to the Industrial Tribunal Office advising that a settlement had been concluded between the parties as a result of conciliation action by the Labour Relations Agency.

3.4	On 17 January 2008 the hearing listed for the 20 March 2008 was postponed following notification of the conciliated settlement.

3.5	The claimant has waited for payment of the agreed settlement monies but no money has been forthcoming.  

3.6	At the hearing on the 11 April 2008 the Chairman explained that the tribunal could only look behind the conciliated settlement if something was amiss with the agreement or there were some other exceptional circumstances.  The Chairman then asked the claimant what her concern was and what was her reason for coming to the tribunal.  The claimant explained that the respondent had not complied with the settlement which was reached with the Labour Relations Agency and that when she advised the Tribunal Office by e-mail, the Notice of Hearing relating to today’s hearing was sent out to her and she attended on foot of the Notice of Hearing.  The claimant explained that she was very unhappy that the respondent had failed to honour the agreement which had been reached.

3.7	The claimant gave no evidence of any concerns about the actual agreement itself nor of the role of the Labour Relations Agency Officer in conciliating the settlement.

THE LAW

4.1	Article 245 (2)(e) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 provides that if a party refrains from continuing proceedings following a conciliation agreement, the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear the claim is ousted.  The tribunal cannot reopen the case unless there are exceptional circumstances leading the tribunal to set aside the settlement.

4.2	The principles under which conciliation officers must act were summarised by the EAT in Clarke & Others -v- Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council; Wilson & Others -v-  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council 2006 IRLR 324.  

4.3	It is clear from the decisions of the EAT in these cases that a conciliated settlement will not be set aside arising out of the actions of a conciliation officer unless bad faith or other unfair methods are established.

4.4	A conciliated settlement can also be set aside on common law grounds.  Harvey on Employment Law confirms at Division T paragraph 394 indicates that mistake, duress or illegality may provide grounds for setting aside the agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

5.1	There was no evidence to suggest that the Labour Relations Agency Officer acted in bad faith or adopted any unfair method to achieve a settlement.  There was also no evidence that any of the common law grounds for setting aside an agreement pertained in this case.  It was clear that the hearing listed for the 20 March 2008 were adjourned because of the conciliated settlement.  The claimant was very clear that her concern was that the respondent had failed to honour the agreement which had been reached between them with the assistance of the Labour Relations Agency.

5.2	The tribunal has therefore been presented with no reason to set aside the conciliated settlement and therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the case.  The claim is therefore dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	11 April 2008, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: