INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 47/01
640/02

Applicant in each case:	Margaret L Gregg

AND

Respondents:			1.	Department for Employment and Learning                 47/01
2.	Peter Elliott

1.	Department for Employment and Learning               640/02
2.	Judith Shaw
3.	Alan Shannon

DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

Under Rule 11 (5) of the Industrial Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 1996 as set out in Industrial Tribunal’s (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 I as the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal that heard this application on a preliminary issue, refuse the application by the applicant for a Review of the Decision of the Tribunal, as in my opinion the application for review has no reasonable prospect of success.

REASONS

1.	The application for a Review is for a Review of the dismissal of application 47/01, “as being brought out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend the time limit in respect of the application”.

2.	As stated in 2.2 of the Decision the act of discrimination referred to in case number 47/01 was unknown to the applicant until 12 September 2000 and it was from that date, when the applicant argued that she actually became aware of the act of discrimination, that the three months time limit commences.

3.	The applicant had received advice in this matter from the Equal Opportunities Commission.

In paragraph 1.6 of the Decision the tribunal quotes the applicant’s letter to the respondents as follows:-

“I have until 11 December 2000 to write but the Commission’s advice is to write earlier than this date”.

The tribunal believe that the Commission had advised the applicant to commence proceedings before 12 December 2000 and not merely to write to the respondents.  The applicant appears to have misunderstood this advice.  The applicant had gone to the trouble to speak to the Commission, had been told what to do and failed to do it.  She still commenced this particular part of the claim 47/01 prior to the completing of the internal procedures which were ongoing at that time.  The tribunal accept that these were not “grievance procedures” in the true sense of the words, but ongoing internal procedures of appraisal.  This of itself did not lessen the fact that the applicant had to get her application to the tribunal before 12 December, and she did in fact get her application in before these procedures had completed, but unfortunately not before 12 December 2000.

4.	The fact that the applicant did lodge her application on 20 December was, she states, as a result of a letter dated 15 December 2000 from the Commission which had already advised her of her final date for the application as being 12 December.  Naturally the Commission advised her to lodge the application immediately.

5.	The application for Review is therefore refused as the act of discrimination occurred, in the view of the tribunal, on 12 September 2000 and the three months expired on 11 December 2000.  The tribunal fully considered the matter at the Hearing and explained its reasons in its Decision and it would not be in the interests of justice to re-open the matter.

Chairman:
Date: