![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Arroyo-Valencia v. Tibbett and Britten Ltd & Ors [2002] UKEAT 0752_01_1706 (17 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0752_01_1706.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 0752_01_1706, [2002] UKEAT 752_1_1706 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT)
MR B V FITZGERALD MBE
MR D A C LAMBERT
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
For the Appellant | MR G ARROYO-VALENCIA (the Appellant in Person) |
JUSTICE LINDSAY (PRESIDENT)
"The Applicant is aware that the acts of certain Respondents are outside of the 3 month time limit, although his claim for ongoing act is in time, but asks that the Tribunal use its discretionary powers to allow the whole of his claim on the grounds that the advice given by his Union was so entirely ill-founded as to be detrimental to him. When he sought to have his Union Representative changed as he did not appear to be acting in his interests – but, being foreign to the country, lacked knowledge, which he has sought to ascertain through a change of Representative. His requests were refused, despite appeals. He sought alternative advice/clarification from the Northampton Racial Equality Council (REC), who contacted the Union and the ill-founded advice was compounded in January 2000; the Union then arranged a meeting with the REC and invited the Applicant, who had not been consulted about the arrangement. The meeting took place on 08.02.00. The advice was again so ill-founded that the Applicant sought further assistance from his current Representatives who make this request on his behalf and, as soon as copies of documentation were provided set about with immediate effect to prepare and submit this case. The Applicant was not forewarned that the delays caused by the Union and REC could disadvantage his case; nor of how he could take this forward and was given the clear impression that to do so would mean the automatic forfeit of his job.
The Applicant is of Columbian origin and is black. English is his second language. Common nuances and innuendoes of the English language can be difficult for his, and in high pressure situations with several people talking he would benefit from a translator, or written material before his, which he comprehends very well. There are also cultural differences. The Applicant applied himself in the work place and frequently apologised for his limited skills in spoken English, seeking reassurance that his meaning was accurately comprehended."
And so he was aware of difficulties that the passage of time presented to him.
1. The Applicant's request for a review of the Tribunal's decision promulgated on 29th August 2000 is out of time and refused.
2. The Respondents' application that the 6th, 10th, 12th and 13th Respondents be discharged from the proceedings is refused.
So, of course, Mr Arroyo-Valencia had won argument 2 but had lost argument 1.
(4) An application for the purposes of paragraph (1) may be made at the hearing. If no application is made at the hearing, an application may be made to the Secretary on or after the date of the hearing, but within 14 days of the date on which the decision was sent to the parties. Such application must be made in writing and must state the grounds in full."
1. "This matter comes before the Tribunal today on an application for a review of the Tribunal's earlier decision promulgated on 29 August that the 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 11th Respondents be discharged from these proceedings. His application, which was made by letter dated 16th September 2000, relates…"
and then it goes on, but it is plain that the Tribunal was treating the matter on the footing that there was an application of 16 September.
2 "This application is out of time and we have listened to Mr Arroyo's explanation which basically is that he was heavily engaged in another Tribunal application at the relevant time and therefore did not lodge his application for a review as quickly as he should.
3 Having considered that application, we find that the explanation put forward does not satisfy the Tribunal and therefore it is not appropriate for us to extend the time limit specified in the rules. The application for a review is therefore refused."