1667_07IT
![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Gorman v Southern Education and Library [2008] NIIT 1667_07IT (14 March 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2008/1667_07IT.html Cite as: [2008] NIIT 1667_07IT, [2008] NIIT 1667_7IT |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CASE REF: 1667/07
CLAIMANT: Sharon Elizabeth Gorman
RESPONDENT: Southern Education and Library Board
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that, as the claimant's representative has conceded, the claimant was not dismissed, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the case is dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Miss E McCaffrey
Members: Mr Carroll
Mr McGuiness
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr Reid, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Hagan & McConville, Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Ms Finnegan, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Education & Library Board's Legal Service.
The Issue:
This was an unfair dismissal case. However, as a preliminary issue the respondent's representative made the panel aware that their position was that the claimant had not been dismissed and both parties agreed this issue had to be addressed as a preliminary issue. Accordingly we have considered this issue as a preliminary issue.
The Facts:
The Law And Decision
The respondent's argument was that because the claimant had been reinstated in one post and her dismissal had been commuted to a final written warning in relation to her other posts, but with a change of work location, she had not been dismissed and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with her claim.
After considering the case law and in particular the decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales in the case of Roberts –v- West Coast Trains Limited [2004] IRLR 788, the claimant's representative conceded that in the light of that decision and of other relevant case law and given that the claimant's appeal had been successful and she had been reinstated in the post subject to a final written warning, that the claimant had not been dismissed.
In the light of this concession, and given the relevant case law in relation to this case, it is our finding that the claimant was not dismissed as her appeal was successful and accordingly we have no jurisdiction to deal with her unfair dismissal claim. The case is therefore dismissed.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 29 January 2008, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: