THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 147/05

CLAIMANT:                   	  John Kalos

RESPONDENTS:       	1. 	Thomas Doran Trust
2.	Parkanaur College
3.	Wilfred  Mitchell

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that it should stand down.

Constitution of the Tribunal:

Chairman:	Mr Palmer

Members:               Ms May
                                Mr Irwin

Appearances:

The claimant represented himself.

Mr Mitchell, the third-named respondent and the Chief Executive of the second-named respondent, represented all the respondents.

1.	The matter to be considered by the tribunal was whether it should stand down in the circumstances set out below.

2.	The claimant brought a number of claims against the respondents, which were
listed before the tribunal.

3. 	During the course of the hearing Ms May, one of the panel members, raised with 
Mr Mitchell matters connected to documentation supplied to the tribunal.

4. 	On the fifth day of the hearing, Mr Mitchell, shortly after he was sworn in to give 
evidence, mentioned that Supporting People funding was received by Parkanaur College (the College) from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (the NIHE).  At this stage Ms May asked for a short adjournment, as there could be a conflict of interest.

5. 	The possible conflict was that the NIHE was Ms May’s employer, which, as
previously stated, provided funding to the College.

6. 	The Chairman, sitting alone, explained the situation to the parties.  The claimant
raised no objection to Ms May sitting on the tribunal to decide the issues between the parties.  Mr Mitchell did raise objection to Ms May sitting, as there were on-going issues between the College and the NIHE.

7. 	The tribunal informed the parties that the panel, as presently constituted, could not
continue with the case in view of Mr Mitchell’s strong objection.  The claimant objected to a two person panel consisting of the Chairman and Mr Irwin and Mr Mitchell consented.  The tribunal explained to the claimant that if a two person panel was not acceptable a new three person panel would be appointed to hear the case.  The claimant sought a four week adjournment in order to seek legal advice.  Mr Mitchell had no objection.  The claimant agreed to write to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals (the office) by 10 March 2006 stating his position.

8. 	The claimant wrote, in the following terms, to a member of the office staff by an 
undated letter received on 9 March 2006:

“Further to our phone conversation, I wish to confirm my desire to continue with the 
above case using the present 2 person panel members providing I receive assurance that all testimony and panel contributions up to date (including contributions of the lady panel member that withdrew from the case) are left in tact and any decisions made will be taken into consideration all what has already transpired.

At this stage, I do not envisage another brand new tribunal case, but as already stated, I value assurance from the present panel members that what the lady panel member contributed will be submitted for a final decision.  I could receive assurance in person when the tribunal resumes.

The best day of the week for me for resumption of the case is on a Tuesday.”

9. 	The office wrote to the claimant on 10 March 2006 as follows:

“I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence received by our office on 9th March 2006 and would advise that the Chairman of the Tribunal has advised that nothing is excluded, all that has been raised so far will be part of the case.  The decision will be made on that basis.

A copy of your correspondence and our reply to same will be issued to Mr Mitchell for his information and comments.”

10. 	A copy of the claimant’s letter which was received on 9th March 2006 and the office’s reply was forwarded to Mr Mitchell on 10 March 2006 for comment.

11. 	Mr Mitchell’s position is set out in his letter of 13 March 2006 to the office.  The letter states as follows;

“In reply to your letter dated 10 March 2006 I would have no problem in principle with the case being heard before a newly constituted panel, however I would be concerned that five valuable days of a small voluntary business have been wasted to date.

I do however find it unacceptable for the case to continue with two panel members if any prior contribution, from the lady panel member who waited until a late stage to declare a potential conflict of interest, is not removed from the case.  At the summing up stage of the hearing I was planning to highlight her conduct throughout the five days of the hearing not to mention her contempt for the chairman’s role.”

12. 	The full tribunal considered all the above matters, by way of the Chairman seeking the views of the two members by telephone, and it was decided, unanimously, that as the parties are in disagreement as to Ms May’s input it would not be appropriate to continue to hear this case with a two member panel.  The current panel has, therefore, stepped down and a newly constituted tribunal will be appointed to hear the case.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	4 October, 24 October, 2 December 2005,
					13 January and 10 February 2006, Omagh.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to the parties: