BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Peifer v St Patrick's & St Brigid's Col... Western Education & Library Bo... [2011] NIIT 01504_05IT (06 September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/1504_05IT.html |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1504/05
CLAIMANT: James Robert Peifer
RESPONDENTS: 1. St Patrick’s & St Brigid’s College
2. Western Education & Library Board
DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that there is no claim of indirect sex discrimination properly before the tribunal and that the claim of sex discrimination is a claim of direct discrimination only.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President (sitting alone): Mr N Kelly
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and was unrepresented.
The respondents were represented by Mr P O’Rawe, Solicitor, of the Joint Legal Service.
The Relevant Facts
1. This was a pre-hearing review to determine one issue; namely, whether the claimant’s claim includes a claim for indirect sex discrimination.
2. The claimant had applied unsuccessfully for a post. Two essential selection criteria and one desirable selection criteria were applied by the respondents. The claimant alleged that he had been discriminated against on the ground of his gender, in this process.
3. In case management discussions, the tribunal had sought to narrow the issues.
4. The hearing was timetabled. Each party was given 15 minutes to explain why the claim, as articulated and as case-managed to date, included or did not include a claim of indirect sex discrimination.
5. The substance of the claimant’s submission was that the selection criteria applied by the respondents favoured females more than males and that the workforce was substantially female.
6. Mr O’Rawe’s submission was that the claimant had already conceded that he met both essential criteria and the desirable criterion which had been, to use the claimant’s term, ‘enhanced’.
7. I asked the claimant to confirm that that was indeed the case, ie that he satisfied all three criteria. He confirmed that this was the case.
8. I explained to the claimant that that would appear to suggest that the case could only proceed as a case of direct sex discrimination, since he was not in a position to argue that the criteria applied excluded him or that he had been disadvantaged by the wording of those criteria.
9. I gave the claimant further time to argue against that point; but he appeared unable to do so.
Decision
10. I gave my final ruling orally at the pre-hearing review hearing, ie that the claim did not include a claim of indirect sex discrimination but was a claim of direct sex discrimination only.
11. The overriding objective, as set out in Regulation 3 of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005, provides that dealing with a case justly includes ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly and that unnecessary expense is saved. It is important that, through the case-management process, parties and the tribunal focus their attention on the issue or issues which are properly to be determined by the tribunal. The claimant’s position is that he satisfied the two essential criteria and the one desirable criterion applied by the respondents in the relevant appointment process. In those circumstances the claim of unlawful discrimination is a claim of unlawful direct discrimination and not a claim of unlawful indirect discrimination. The substantive hearing will proceed on that basis.
12. It would be contrary to the overriding objective for the tribunal to spend time, and for the parties to expend resources, on a sterile debate on whether or not the criteria,
as drafted, could have excluded more males than females where the claimant’s case is that they did not exclude him.
Vice President:
Date and place of hearing: 2 September 2011, Belfast
Date decision issued to parties:
