THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	1067/10

CLAIMANT:		Richard Prince

RESPONDENT:		Quinn Building Products Ltd

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that the claim for race discrimination relating to the period when the claimant worked for Quinn Glass Limited in England was not presented within time and there are no grounds upon which that time-limit could be extended.  That part of the claim is therefore dismissed and the remainder of the claim will proceed to hearing.  

Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President (sitting alone):		Mr Noel Kelly

Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and was not represented.
Interpreter:		Miss Pauline Schmidt, Interpreter.
The respondent was represented by Mr C Hamill, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Jones Cassidy Jones, Solicitors.

1.	I explained the purpose of the hearing to the claimant and clarified that the first of three issues set down for the pre-hearing review was now no longer relevant as disability had been conceded by the respondent.  That left two issues for determination which related to the claim of race discrimination while the claimant worked in England and referred firstly to time limitation and secondly to the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal.

2.	I stated that we would take the remaining two issues in turn and that I would hear first the respondent’s arguments in relation to the second issue, ie:-

“was the claim for race discrimination relating to the period when the claimant worked for Quinn Glass Limited in England presented within time?;

and I would then seek the claimant’s comments on those arguments and on that issue.  

3.	Mr Hamill referred to Paragraph 7 in the claim form which contained a claim in relation to the period during which the claimant had worked in England and which alleged race discrimination in relation to the arrangements provided for the claimant during that period.  

4.	Mr Hamill submitted that the documentation made it plain that the claimant went to England on or about 23 January 2009 and that he returned to Northern Ireland on or about 16 February 2009.  At that point the arrangements complained about ceased.  

5.	The claimant accepted, in evidence, that he worked in England between 23 January 2009 and 26 February 2009.  He stated that his race discrimination claim for that period was on the basis that a Mr Malcolm Clarkson had done nothing, during that period to ensure that he worked on the same conditions as other drivers who were working in England.  I am satisfied that this was a discrete claim.

6.	I explained the position relating to time-limits to the claimant and asked him to explain why  he had not lodged a tribunal claim within three months of his return to Northern Ireland in February 2009.  The claimant stated that he had lodged a formal internal complaint with the respondent on 16 February 2009 and that he had attended a meeting on 23 February 2009 at which Mr McNally and Ms Lee were present.  He stated, in evidence, that the issue of racial discrimination had been raised in the course of that meeting on 23 February 2009 and that he had then waited to see what consequences would follow for the individuals he had complained about.  

7.	I asked the claimant to explain the delay between 23 February 2009, when he was clearly raising an issue, on his evidence, of race discrimination and the lodgement of the tribunal claim some 13 months later on 8 April 2010.  I asked, first of all, whether he had sought advice from anyone during that 13 month period.  He stated that he had not.  I asked him whether he wanted to say anything else about that issue.  He stated he had done what anyone else would have done, he had raised the issue with the employer and he had also made telephone calls from England during the relevant period complaining about matters.  

8.	The claimant was given a further opportunity to say anything he wished to say about the 13 month delay.  He stated he had nothing else to add.  

Decision

9.	I gave the following decision orally at the end of the hearing after having risen for a brief period to consider what had been said.  The claimant has asked for a written decision.

The claim in relation to working arrangements afforded to the claimant during the period from 23 January 2009 to 16 February 2009 while he was working in England is substantially out of time.  The claimant knew, on his own evidence, that he was alleging race discrimination had occurred during that period while he was in England.  He stated in evidence that he had raised that specific issue in a meeting with the respondent on 23 February 2009.  The claimant accepts that he sought no advice during the following 13 months before lodging the claim in the tribunal.  He has put forward no reason for the delay in lodging the claim.  In those circumstances, there are no grounds on which I could properly find that it was just and equitable to extend time for lodging the claim.  The part of the claim which relates to race discrimination which allegedly occurred when the claimant was working in England between 23 January 2009 to 16 February 2009 is dismissed and the remainder of the claim will proceed to hearing as directed by the tribunal in the Case Management Discussion which took place immediately after the            pre-hearing review.

Vice President:

Date and place of hearing:	21 January 2011, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: