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 Drumglass High School Southern Education and Library... [2013] NIIT 01615_05IT (09 September 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/1615_05IT.html Cite as: [2013] NIIT 1615_5IT, [2013] NIIT 01615_05IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1615/05
CLAIMANT: James Robert Peifer
RESPONDENTS: 1. Drumglass High School
2. South Eastern Education and Library Board
Certificate of Correction
In the decision issued on 9 September 2013, the correct name of the second named
respondent should be Southern Education and Library Board.
Chairman: _______________________________________________
Date: __________________________________________
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1615/05
CLAIMANT: Robert James Peifer
RESPONDENTS: 1. Drumglass High School
2. South Eastern Education and Library Board
DECISION
On the basis of the respondents’ admission of liability made by counsel in open tribunal, the tribunal finds that the respondents unlawfully discriminated against the claimant on the ground of sex, in relation to the above claim presented to the tribunal on 23 November 2005.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr S A Crothers
Members: Mr F Murtagh
Ms E McFarline
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and represented himself.
The respondents were represented by Miss Finnegan, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Education and Library Board’s Solicitors.
1. The respondents’ counsel admitted liability, in open tribunal, to unlawful discrimination by the respondents on the ground of sex against the claimant in relation to the above claim presented to the tribunal on 23 November 2005.
2. It did not prove possible to proceed to a remedy hearing during the remainder of the week set aside for the substantive hearing as the claimant objected to such a proximate hearing, and declared his intention to lodge an appeal.
3. It is further recorded that the unanimous decision of the tribunal, in accordance with its overriding objective, and in light of the admission of unlawful sex discrimination by both respondents, is that the case is postponed to consider a hearing on remedy at an appropriate time.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 2 September 2013, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
