[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Farrell v JJB Sports Plc [2006] NIIT 26_06 (26 June 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2006/26_06.html Cite as: [2006] NIIT 26_6, [2006] NIIT 26_06

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 26/06

CLAIMANT: Cecilia Farrell

RESPONDENT: JJB Sports Plc

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

The decision of the tribunal is that the time to enter a response to this claim has been extended by 14 days.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Vice President (sitting alone): Mrs Price

Appearances:

The claimant did not appear.

The respondent was represented by Mr M Wolff, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by McIldowies, Solicitors.

1. On reviewing this file I have found that there have been a number of errors to which I have alerted counsel for the respondent. It would appear that the claimant's claim is one of unfair/constructive dismissal. It was originally presented to the tribunal on 19 December 2005..
2. The claimant was informed by letter of 9 January 2006 that her claim had been accepted in part and rejected in part. The parts of the claim relating to holiday pay and authorised deductions from wages and Working Time Regulations (holiday pay) required a statutory grievance to be raised with the respondent at least 28 days prior to presenting the claims at the Office of the Tribunals. It would appear that this has not been done and those claims are not being pursued. However, the Office of the Tribunals accepted the claim in relation to unfair dismissal and breach of contract. On examining this claim more closely, it would appear to have been one of constructive dismissal which is subject to a statutory grievance procedure. However, we did not notify the claimant of this and the time limit for presenting a further claim has now expired. At this time counsel for the respondent did not make an objection to the claim progressing in the terms to which we have alerted the claimant, namely that it is one of unfair/constructive dismissal and breach of contract. I consider that it would just and equitable to allow this claim to proceed and it is regrettable that such an error was made at the pre-acceptance procedure. However the respondent has at all times been wishing to enter a response to the claim of unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
3. Counsel's application for an extension of time was based on the fact that the respondent company did not receive the tribunal's letter of 9 January 2006 inviting them to complete a response. Ms Christine Emberton was called to give evidence in this regard. She is the Personnel Manager for the respondent at their Headquarters in Wigan and she described the post room which has three staff who sort mail. All mail for personnel department comes through to her and the tribunal work is left on her desk. She did not receive the letter of 9 January 2006 from the tribunal. She first knew about the claim on 1 March 2006 when the Labour Relations Agency telephoned her. She contacted the tribunals straight away and had the claim faxed to her on 1 March 2006. She told the tribunal that she had not received the claim, and sent a follow-up letter to the tribunal on 1 March 2006.
4. Although I appreciate it is easy for a party to say that they have not received correspondence from the tribunal and seek an extension of time, I am quite satisfied from the evidence given by Ms Emberton that the letter from the Office of the Tribunals, for whatever reason, did not arrive and I am also satisfied that when she became aware, on 1 March 2006, that there was a claim she took all steps to contact the tribunal.
5. Counsel has referred to Rule 4(5) of Schedule 1 to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 and in particular where the respondent may apply for an extension of the time limit within which he has to present his response. "The application must be presented to the Office of the Tribunals within 28 days of the date on which the respondent was sent a copy of the claim". Counsel has submitted that as the respondent only became aware of a claim on 1 March 2006 then the extension of time request should be considered from that date.
6. This claim has raised some difficult questions, but I am aware of my powers in relation to justice and equity and I am satisfied that for the reasons stated above, the claim should be permitted to continue in its present form and similarly the respondent is given a further period of 14 days to present its response to the claim.

Vice President:

Date and place of hearing: 26 June 2006, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: