THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	3314/01

APPLICANT:		Oliver McCullough

RESPONDENTS:		1. Police Authority for Northern Ireland
				2. Mr J Stewart
				3. P Armstrong

DECISION

The complaint is dismissed.

Appearances:

APPLICANT:	The applicant appeared in person without representation.

RESPONDENTS:	Mr Michael Boyd, Barrister-at-Law, for the respondents.

1.	The applicant alleges that the successful candidate in a competition in 1997 in which he was also a competitor supplied false information to the respondent.  The applicant had alleged discrimination in this competition but his complaint had been dismissed in or about 26 November 2001 following a hearing on 5-7 November 2001.  In August/ September 2001, he claims to have discovered this new information and told the respondents about it.  The respondents stated that the successful candidate did meet the criteria.

2.	The applicant alleges that in coming to this decision the respondents victimised him because of his complaint subsequently dismissed by the Tribunal.  He alleges that the respondents thereby discriminated against him by way of victimisation contrary to Article 8(1)(a) of the Sex Discrimination Order 1976 – discrimination in the arrangements made by the respondents for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment.  And factually he says that such conclusion flows from the warning given to candidates that they faced disqualification or dismissal if they knowingly give false information or suppressed material facts.

3.	I cannot accept that the applicant’s claim does fall within Article 8(1)(a).  The applicant is not trying to re-open the claim which was dismissed - because of new evidence.  He is trying to show that the respondent’s failure to act on his new information was less favourable treatment of him because he brought an earlier complaint.  He does not identify a comparator in this exercise but, even if he did, it seems to me that he is not complaining about the arrangements which the respondents made to determine who should be offered employment.  He appears to be content with those arrangements.  He is rather complaining about the arrangements made and/or the decision made in relation to the investigation/determination of the accuracy of information supplied by a candidate in light of the arrangements made for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment.

	There is a distinction and it is one which is fatal to the applicant’s complaint in my opinion.  I therefore dismiss that complaint.

____________________________________
J E MAGUIRE
President

Date and place of hearing:	2 September 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: