THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REFS:	197/01
2929/01
639/04

CLAIMANT:			Majella McCarron

RESPONDENT:		The Queen’s University of Belfast

DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that:-

(i)	the claimant’s complaints in Case Reference No: 639/04 have been presented within the prescribed time limit;

(ii)	the claimant was not discriminated against by the respondent on the ground of her sex, or on the ground of her status as a part-time worker; and

(iii)	the claimant was not discriminated against by way of victimisation by the respondent.

Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Ms M Boyle.
The respondent was represented by Mr F O’Reilly, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Elliott Duffy Garrett, Solicitors.

1.	The claimant, Ms McCarron, brought three complaints against the respondent University, alleging that she was discriminated against by the latter on the grounds of her sex and her status as a part-time worker.  She also alleged that she suffered discrimination by way of victimisation.

2.	(i)	In her first application (Case Reference No: 197/01 – complaint of sex discrimination, and discrimination on the ground of her part-time status) she alleged that discrimination occurred in that:-	

			(a)	she was excluded from meetings of direct relevance to her work;

(b)	she was required to report to a colleague of the same grade, in what she alleged was a departure from normal practice;

(c)	she was not given the same career development opportunities as the full-time colleague to whom she reported; and

			(d)	her skills were undervalued.

		These complaints related to a period from 6 October 2000 onwards.

	(ii)	In her second application (Case Reference No: 2909/01 – alleging sex discrimination, discrimination on the ground of part-time status and victimisation) she makes further complaints, some of which are similar to and follow on from those in the first application.  She alleges discrimination took place, in a period from 4 January 2001 to July 2001, in that:-	

(a)	she was further excluded from areas of direct relevance to her work;

(b)	the full-time colleague to whom she was required to report was appointed Team Leader, without her being given the opportunity to apply;

(c)	she was not given the same career development opportunities as full-time colleagues; and

(d)	her skills continued to be underutilised by comparison to           full-time colleagues.

	(iii)	Her third and final application (Case Reference No: 639/04) concerns further allegations of discrimination on the grounds of sex and part-time status, and of victimisation.  These relate to the investigation of an internal complaint which she made under the respondent’s internal procedures, and to the decision of the Adjudication Committee and the Appeal Committee in relation to that complaint.

The latter reported on 12 December 2003.

It relation to that third complaint, the respondent contended that it was out of time.  The tribunal found otherwise and we deal with the time point subsequently when considering the substance of the complaint.	
			
3.	(i)	In order to determine these matters the tribunal heard evidence from:-

the claimant, Mrs McCarron;

Dr Maeveen Carville;

Mr Clive McDowell;

Mr Brendan Loughlin;

Mr George Dunn; and

Dr David Bell;

on her behalf.

It heard evidence from:-

Professor Fred McBride;

Mr Randall Thompson;

Mr Norman Russell;

Mr John Gormley;

Mr Alan Rea;

Mrs Margaret Leonard;

Mr Sean McGuckin;

Dr Ricky Rankin;

Mr Paul Browne; and

Mr Jim McCurry;

on behalf of the respondent.

Where appropriate, we refer to the positions held by these persons in the course of the decision.

It also had regard to a considerable amount of documentary evidence submitted and referred to in the course of the proceedings.	
			
	(ii)	The relevant law relating to discrimination on the grounds of sex and             part-time status and by way of victimisation is set out at Articles 3 and 6 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, particularly Regulations 5, 7 and 8.

In applying the law, courts and tribunals are required to have regard to the        so-called Barton guidance (See : Barton  v  Investor Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd [2003] IRLR 332 EAT, approved by the English Court of Appeal in amended form in Igen Ltd  (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and Others  v  Wong, Chamberlain Solicitors & Another  v  Emokpak; Brunel University  v  Webster [2005] IRLR 258.)	
			
	(iii)	The tribunal finds the facts set out in the following paragraphs.	
			
4.	(i)	The claimant, at the time of her third and final application to the tribunal, was employed as a Senior Systems Analyst in the Infrastructure Division of Information Services within the respondent Queen’s University of Belfast.

She had started work in January 1988 as a Academically Related Grade 1 Analyst/Programmer in the Networks Section of the User Support and Networks Division.  (In the course of the claimant’s career the names of the various Sections and Divisions changed, as did job titles, and for convenience we have used ‘Information Services’ throughout this decision as the claimant’s place of employment.)	
			
	(ii)	She initially reported to Philip Black, and this continued until May 1994 when she went off on maternity leave.  In the Summer of 1994 she was told that she would be reporting to Dr George Munroe in the User Support Division and on her return from maternity leave in November 1994 she started to report to Dr Munroe as a member of the Information Service Group (ISG).	
			
	(iii)	In late 1995, ISG started building a Central Web Service for Queen’s.  The development of this new service became known as the WWW Initiative.  The claimant clearly played a major role in this development.  It is also clear that she had a good working relationship with Dr Munroe.  He held meetings and prioritised tasks at these meetings.  Minutes were taken and circulated as a matter of course.	
			
	(iv)	In 1996, Dr Rankin became manager of the WWW Initiative.  In April 1997, Dr Munroe and another staff member left the University under the terms of a severance deal.  They were not replaced.

At that stage, Dr Rankin became the claimant’s line manager with respect to the WWW Initiative.

Dr Rankin, as line manager, had a different and less formal management style from his predecessors.  He readily admits this.  In his witness statement he describes it thus, “ … [m]y management style is and always has been informal.  Ms McCarron’s responsibilities were to keep the system running.  That type of work does not need much direction unless there is a problem, in which case I would become involved.  We were a small group, all housed in the same building and easily accessible to each other.  It is possible to discuss day to day issues in an informal way, rather than by convening meetings”.	
			
	(v)	The claimant started to work part-time in 1997.  She had requested                 part-time work in late August of that year, and asked to work 2/3 of her normal hours.

Her request was granted, and she started part-time working on 1 September 1997, despite being warned by her colleague, Dr Carville, that she could expect less favourable treatment on account of her part-time status.

Notwithstanding such a suggestion, it is clear to the tribunal that when the claimant applied for part-time working she did not have any difficulty getting it.  This may be thought significant in view of her current allegations against her employers.  However, we have attached limited significance to it in view of the many changes in the personnel and structures in the department which had taken place by the time she made her initial complaint.	
			
5.	(i)	In October 1997, ISG moved into the CMC Web Support Group.  The group members were the claimant, Alan Rea (on a half-time basis, spending the remainder of his time in the Parallel Computing Centre, and in the Research Group), Bahram Pourjajali, and Dr Rankin, as Group Head.	
			
	(ii)	The Group was under a considerable amount of pressure, and the claimant felt that she was becoming tied down in systems work and user support, and had little time to pursue the web work, which was her main area.

An attempt to move some systems work was to no avail, and the problem of understaffing continued.  The problem was accentuated by the facts that Dr Munroe and the other staff member who had taken redundancy had not been replaced, that no one had been recruited to cover the hours lost when the claimant went part-time, and that demand for the web service had dramatically increased.	
			
	(iii)	Dr Rankin indicated to the claimant that he could not get more staff or resources, and suggested to her that she should log all queries and analyse them to measure demand.  She did not do this.	
			
	(iv)	As time went on, Alan Rea became more involved in the CMC Web Project.  He held a Grade 3 post, and in late 1998/early 1999, the claimant was re-graded to a Grade 3 post of Senior Systems Analyst, following a successful appeal against a HAY panel re-grading.

She was delighted with her success, but felt that neither Dr Rankin nor Alan Rea was pleased with that success.  In her evidence to the tribunal she stated that she felt ‘hurt and excluded’, and went on to detail a series of meetings from which she felt she had been left out.  Alan Rea had been invited to some of these meetings.	
			
	(v)	On 30 November 2000, she raised issues about non-invitation to meetings with Dr Rankin.  She also raised the issue of reporting to Alan Rea.  She had seen a structural diagram where the latter’s name was in bold type on the same line as hers.  Dr Rankin told her that Alan Rea was line manager for both her and George Dunn.  The claimant did not accept this and pointed out that she (a Grade 3) was reporting to another Grade 3 (Alan Rea) and that, among the Grade 3 staff who had been re-graded though HAY, she was the only one who was reporting to another Grade 3.	
			
6.	(i)	As far as the claimant’s complaints about not being invited to attend meetings are concerned, we can find no evidence from which we can infer that she suffered unlawful discrimination either on account of her sex or her part-time status.

We have already made reference to the different management style of Dr Rankin and one of his predecessors, Dr Munroe.  Additionally, in a busy department, particularly one which was going through a transitional period at the relevant time, we accept that it was not possible for every member of staff to attend all meetings.

Indeed it seems to us unreasonable that any member of staff should have the expectation that he or she should be invited to all meetings.

The practice was to have meetings at the time which was convenient to the greater number of people.  This led to a tendency to have afternoon meetings, as mornings tended to be a very busy time for computer operators.	
			
	(ii)	There were various reasons, both general and specific, for the                     claimant’s non-attendance at meetings.

On some occasions it was because senior managers considered that Alan Rea’s attendance was both appropriate and adequate to represent the department.  He was perceived as Team Leader (something disputed by the claimant and with which we deal separately) and we consider that it was reasonable for management to take the view that his presence at meetings was sufficient.

At the time in question, the claimant was also under considerable pressure at work, and management were also reluctant to ask her to attend on afternoons.	
			
	(iii)	Dr Rankin acknowledged that there were meetings to which the claimant should have been invited.  We accept his evidence that she was not invited through oversight, for which he had no hesitation in apologising.	
			
	(iv)	More specifically, a meeting of the Web Technology Forum was initially arranged at a time suitable for the majority of people.  In any event it was not organised by Dr Rankin.

Four subsequent meetings were arranged to suit the claimant, but of these she attended only two.

In relation to a Web Management Workshop, the claimant was enthusiastic and willing to participate.  However, she was unable to meet the organiser when he came to Belfast, and the following day she did not ask Dr Ranking anything about it.  She was unable to attend the workshop through illness, and not through any fault of the University.	
			
	(v)	Generally, in relation to meetings we do not see why the respondent would in effect disadvantage itself by excluding the claimant from meetings or other opportunities when her presence and contribution could be of value to the respondent.

Although Dr Carville also felt excluded from meetings, so did George Dunn, who gave evidence for the claimant.  Mr Dunn is a male full-time employee.

It seems to us that the claimant’s perception that she was excluded from meetings was the result of a combination of factors – a busy, understaffed department which was adapting constantly to ongoing technological changes, and a turnover of staff, and where the respondent’s counsel concedes that communications were ‘abysmal’.	
			
	(vi)	As this point, we also deal with the claimant’s complaint in relation to ‘dial back’ facilities, which she alleged made it difficult for her to work from home.  We are satisfied that Dr Rankin  was not in any way obstructive or unhelpful in respect of this matter, for she was eventually granted the facility.  He had merely asked her if it was common practice to have such a facility and to justify it.  In view of the expense, which the University incurred, this was not unreasonable, and there is no evidence to suggest he would have treated such a request from a male or full-time employee any differently.	
			
7.	(i)	As far as the claimant’s allegation of underutilisation of her skills are concerned, this problem was acknowledged by Dr Rankin and Alan Rea.  We are satisfied, however, that it was caused by a lack of resources in the department at the relevant time.  Attempts to obtain additional resources were unsuccessful.

An additional factor was that no one had ever been recruited to cover the hours lost to the department when the claimant’s went part-time.	
			
	(ii)	Dr Rankin accepted that the claimant spent too much of her time answering website queries.  As stated earlier, he had suggested that the claimant provide an analysis of the hits and queries the website was receiving, so that he could make a case for more staff.  The claimant did not do this.

He also attempted to encourage a Mr Allen, from a related section, to take over some of the responsibilities.  However, the latter could only make himself available when his other duties permitted.  This was not satisfactory, as prompt responses to queries were needed to protect the integrity of the site.	
			
	(iii)	We are therefore satisfied that any underutilisation of the claimant’s skills resulted from the resources problem which the department faced.  There is no evidence from which we infer that the claimant was treated less favourably on account of her sex or part-time status.	
			
8.	(i)	The claimant also complains that she, as a Grade 3 (following her HAY evaluation), had to report to Alan Rea, also a Grade 3.

This was obviously an unsatisfactory situation, and we understand that the issue is to be reviewed by the University.

However, same grade reporting was not unique to the claimant.  We find, from the evidence before us, that it was more widespread than she acknowledged and had, to some extent, been accentuated by HAY.

It existed in relation to others within the department, and throughout the wider University.  Examples of some grade reporting involved both males and females.	
			
	(ii)	Again, there is no evidence from which we can infer that in respect of same grading reporting, the claimant was treated less favourably on account of her sex or part-time status.	
			
9.	(i)	Related to the claimant’s complaint of same grade reporting to Alan Rea is her allegation that he had been appointed ‘Team Leader’ without her being given the opportunity to apply for that position.	
			
	(ii)	We are satisfied that when Alan Rea joined the web team it was made clear that he was heading-up the group, which included both the claimant and Mr Dunn.  Alan Rea joined the group as a Grade 3, whereas the latter at that time were Grade 2s.  While the designation ‘Team Leader’ may not have been used, no one would have been in any doubt of his management role.

He was regarded as Team Leader by Professor McBride, a former Head of the Department, and by Norman Russell, the Director of Information Services.  In early 2001, a new Information Services Senior Management Team staff structure was devised for its various divisions.  This was communicated to staff in April 2001.  In the vast majority of cases staff were allocated to posts that corresponded to their posts in previous structures.  The claimant, in common with other staff, was written to by Mr Russell in May 2001.  She was told that she was to report to Alan Rea.  This put on a formal basis the existing line management arrangement.	
			
	(iii)	In fact, Mr Rea did perform the functions of Team Leader.  He convened meetings, signed leave cards for the claimant, and carried out appraisals of her and Mr Dunn in 1998.  The claimant made it clear that she was unhappy with Mr Rea signing her leave card, and she was henceforth allowed to authorise her own leave.  We attach no significance to this because it appears that the taking of leave by staff was routinely approved in any event, and was not an issue of contention.	
			
	(iv)	Significantly, when on a further re-organisation of the department in 2002, Alan Rea’s status as Team Leader was removed, Mr Dunn approached him and asked him did he want to challenge it.  This is not denied by Mr Dunn	
			
	(v)	We dismiss the claimant’s complaint that she suffered less favourable treatment on the grounds alleged in relation to the status of Alan Rea.	
			
10.	(i)	The claimant initially attempted to resolve the grievances to which we have referred informally, but on 13 February 2001 she lodged a complaint of discrimination on the ground of her sex and part-time status with Paul Browne, the Equal Opportunities Manager, under the University’s internal grievance procedure.

She makes various complaints about Mr Browne’s investigation and about the subsequent stages of the grievance procedure.  These form the basis of Case Reference No: 639/04.

However, as indicated, the respondent has contended that this complaint is out of time, and we deal first with that issue.	
			
	(ii)	The dates and events most relevant to the out of time issue are as follows:-	

9 January 2003 (when the investigatory report into the claimant’s complaint was sent to her);

28 May 2003 (when the Adjudication Committee upheld the commission of the investigatory report); and

13 December 2003 (when she received the decision of an Appeal Committee of 12 December 2003 dismissing the appeal).

	(iii)	The claimant’s originating application was presented to the tribunal on 10 March 2004.  Clearly, it is in time as far as any complaint about the decision of the Appeal Committee is concerned.	
			
	(iv)	Mr O’Reilly BL, for the respondent, contended that the grievance procedure was made up of three discrete elements, and that the complaint was time-barred in relation to the first two of these (investigation and adjudication).	
			
11.	(i)	The relevant law relating to time limits is contained in Article 76(1) and (5) of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and Regulation 8(2) and (3) of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, which both provide for a three month time limit which may be extended where, in all the circumstances of the case, it is just and equitable to do so.

Continuing acts, or acts extending over a period, are to be treated as done at the end of that period.	
			
	(ii)	We have had regard to Hendriks  v  Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2003] IRLR 96.  Mr O’Reilly BL, for the respondent, very fairly conceded that on what he called a ‘liberal’ interpretation of that case, it was open to the tribunal to find that what we were concerned with here was one process extending over a period of time.  Notwithstanding that concession, we have no difficulty in any event in finding that there was one process involved.  Indeed, in her evidence, this seemed to be the view taken by Mrs Leonard, the respondent’s Personnel Manager, though her view cannot of course be definitive in law.

Consequently, we are satisfied that the final complaint (639/04) was brought within time.	
			
	(iii)	If we are wrong in the conclusion expressed in the previous paragraph, we nonetheless consider, in all the circumstances of the case, that it is just and equitable to extend the time limit for presenting the final complaint.

In reaching that conclusion we are mindful that time limits exist for a purpose and should be observed unless there is good reason not to do so.

In the instance case it was reasonable in any event for the claimant to regard the investigation, the adjudication and the appeal as one process and to wait until it had been exhausted before submitting her complaint.

Nor is there any prejudice to the respondent in the sense that it was impossible at this stage to have a fair trial.  This, again, was very fairly conceded by Mr O’Reilly, BL, for the respondent.	
			
	(iv)	In determining the time point, we heard evidence from the claimant’s GP, Dr Bell, and for completeness we make it clear that there was nothing in the medical evidence which would have provided a basis, or support, for extending time.	
			
12.	(i)	We now turn to deal with the substance of the claimant’s complaints of unlawful discrimination and victimisation in respect of the grievance process.	
			
	(ii)	After the claimant lodged her internal grievance on 13 February 2001, her informal attempts at resolution and the formal grievance procedure ran in tandem for a while until, ultimately, she elected to proceed solely under the latter.	
			
	(iii)	On 6 March 2001 she met with Mr Browne who interviewed her and asked her to draw up a summary of her complaints.  This she did on 15 May 2001.

In the interim she had met with various managers in attempts to resolve her complaints, but without any success.	
			
	(iv)	The Equal Opportunities Complaints Procedure provided for a complaint to be investigated by the University’s Equal Opportunities Manager.

All the relevant persons in the claimant’s line management structure were either involved in the subject matter of her complaints, or in the informal discussions which were taking place to resolve them.

Mr Browne had to find someone in whom the complainant had confidence and who was not already involved in her complaint in any capacity.

She suggested three people, including Mr Jim McCorry and Mr Jim Swann, the latter being her preferred option.  However, Mr Swann had taken early retirement and had been re-engaged on a temporary basis.  Mr Browne considered that it was not appropriate that Mr Swann should spend his limited time looking into an Equal Opportunities complaint, and consequently approached Mr McCorry.  Mr McCorry was an Administrative Support Manager (Finance) in the Management and Information Division of Information Services.	
			
	(iv)	On 9 January 2003, the investigatory report compiled by Mr Browne and Mr McCorry was sent to the claimant.  It did not uphold her complaints.  In accordance with the complaints procedure, the report was forwarded to the University’s Personnel Manager, Mrs Leonard, for consideration by the Adjudication Committee.  The claimant was given the opportunity to make written comments on it.  She met with Mr Browne on 14 February 2003, and told him she would like to avail of her right to make written comments on the investigatory report and to have it referred to the Adjudication Committee.	
			
13.	(i)	Insofar as the claimant’s complains about the report of the investigation by Mr Browne and Mr McCorry, she made clear, in cross-examination, that she was not complaining about the latter.

Her complaint against Paul Browne was essentially that he had not carried out a thorough investigation, and had therefore reached invalid conclusions.  It was the claimant’s case that Jim McCorry did not play an equal part with Paul Browne, he did not have the same experience of the latter, and that he allowed himself to be influenced by Mr Browne, albeit not consciously.	
			
	(ii)	We find that Mr McCorry, as co-author of the investigatory report, played an equal part with Mr Brown, and was not influenced improperly by him.  Mr McCorry, although not the claimant’s first choice as co-investigator, was someone on good terms with her and her husband.  He had been a guest at their wedding, and had testified as a witness on her husband’s behalf when he had brought a case against Queen’s before the Fair Employment Tribunal.  While it is not inconceivable that someone in Mr McCorry’s position might discriminate against the claimant on a proscribed ground, it seems to us highly unlikely that he would do so.	
			
	(iii)	We reject the claimant’s allegation that at a meeting in November 2001, Mr Browne offered her money to settle her claim.  This is denied by both Mr Browne and Mr McCorry.  The claimant on that occasion was accompanied by her AUT (Association of University Teachers) representative.  It was open to her to call that representative but she did not do so.	
			
	(iv)	It was not denied that there was an unacceptable delay in furnishing the report of the investigatory panel.  Mr Browne accepted that and apologised for the delay.  The delay was occasioned partly by the fact that at the relevant time Mr Browne was the only person authorised to perform investigatory functions.  It was also in part accounted for by the claimant’s illness.	
			
	(v)	We find nothing from which we can infer that Mr Browne and Mr McCorry, in compiling the report of the investigatory panel, discriminated against the claimant on the ground of sex or part-time status, or by way of victimisation because of the previous proceedings she had instigated against the University.  The delay to which we have referred was unfortunate, but otherwise Mr Browne afforded the claimant frequent meetings, provided her with interview notes and invited written comments where appropriate.  Dr Hudson, an AUT representative, intervened at the appeal stage, and there was no criticism from him that the investigation had not been carried out properly, in that, for example, relevant witnesses had not been interviewed.	
			
14.	(i)	On 6 March 2003 the investigatory report into the claimant’s complaints was referred to the Adjudication Committee.  Its members were Mrs Margaret Leonard, the respondent’s Personnel Manager, Professor Margaret Mullett, Professor of Byzantine Studies and Director of the Institute of Byzantine Studies at Queen’s, and Professor Kenneth Brown, Pro-Vice Chancellor Academic Resources and Planning.	

		Professor Mullett was also Director of the Gender Initiative at Queen’s.  Neither she nor Professor Brown was aware that the claimant had instituted proceedings against the University.	
			
	(ii)	At the outset of her cross-examination the claimant had stated that she was not complaining about the conduct of either Professor Brown or Professor Mullett, and in the course of the proceedings she confirmed that she was no longer making any complaint against Mrs Leonard.	
			
	(iii)	On 28 May 2003 the claimant was informed that the Adjudication had not upheld her complaint, and that therefore the decision of the Adjudication Committee that she had not been discriminated against stood.	
			
	(iv)	On 10 June 2003 the claimant wrote to Margaret Leonard indicating that she wished to appeal to the Appeal Committee and asked if there were any time limits for lodging an appeal.  There was in fact no set period laid down, but Mrs Leonard indicated that the normal practice was to submit an appeal within one month.  The claimant denies that this information was communicated to her.  We are, however, satisfied that she had been in contact by e-mail with Samantha Hood, Mrs Leonard’s secretary, and that she either deleted an e-mail relating to the normal time limit without reading it, or if she did read it, she failed to act upon it.	
			
	(v)	On 15 August 2003, Mr McGuckin, the University’s Director of Human Resources, informed the claimant that she had missed the one month deadline for appeal which, as far as he was concerned, she knew about, and that her file was being closed.	
			
	(vi)	The claimant contacted Mr McGuckin, explaining that she did not know there was a deadline for the appeal, and sought to persuade him to reverse his decision to close the file.

Ultimately, following intervention by Dr Hudson of the AUT on the claimant’s behalf, in which he pointed out that there was no deadline for an appeal, Mr McGuckin re-opened the claimant’s file and agreed to a deadline of 26 September 2003 for submitting an appeal, which the claimant met.	
			
	(vii)	She set out her grounds of appeal in a letter.  These centred against an alleged failure by the Investigatory Panel to look into her complaint properly, and that as a consequence the conclusions of the Adjudication Committee were unsound.	
			
	(viii)	In November 2003, the claimant asked Mr McGuckin to be allowed to make oral representations to the Appeal Committee.  This was refused.	
			
	(ix)	The Appeal Committee, which in addition to Mr McGuckin, consisted of Professor John Gardner, Dean of the Faculty of Legal, Social and Educational Sciences, and Mrs Patricia Gordon, Chief Executive of the South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust, Mrs Gordon was also a member of the University Senate.  It reported on 12 December 2003.  The complaints by the claimant were not upheld.	
			
15.	(i)	In relation to the Appeal Committee, the main thrust of the claimant’s complaint is against Mr McGuckin.  She stated, in cross-examination, that she was not complaining about Professor Gardner or Mrs Gordon (neither of whom was aware that she had brought proceedings against the University).

However, the decision of the Appeal Committee was an unanimous one.  Its other two members, who are clearly distinguished in their respective fields and have no axes to grind where the claimant is concerned, have both provided statements supporting the evidence of Mr McGuckin.

We cannot accept that somehow Mr McGuckin influenced them in the     decision-making processes of the Appeal Committee.  This on its own is sufficient to dispose of the claimant’s allegations against the Appeal Committee, but we will nonetheless deal with her other allegations, which again are centred on Mr McGuckin.	
			
	(ii)	The claimant alleges that Mr McGuckin, by trying to impose a time limit for appeals which did not in fact exist, was being deliberately obstructive towards her because of his knowledge of her previous complaints, with a view to preventing her from appealing. 

It is true that the Equality Opportunity procedures did not lay down any specific time limit for appeal.  However, notwithstanding this, there has to be finality and internal appeal processes cannot be open-ended.  We consider that the period of one month, which was the normal practice, was not in itself unreasonable.  Mr McGuckin, who believed the claimant was aware of this time limit, was entitled to form the view that she was not proceeding with her appeal.  But, in any event, the appeal did take place after he acceded to representations from Dr Hudson, with the result that there was no substantial prejudice to the claimant.	
			
	(iii)	The claimant also complains that Mr McGuckin denied her the right to make oral representations at the appeal hearing.  (She retracted an allegation made in the course of the proceedings that Mr Browne had been allowed to make oral representations.)

The Equal Opportunities procedure made no provision for the making of oral representations.	
			
	(iv)	In respect of the complaints set out at Sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) above, there is no evidence from which we can infer that Mr McGuckin would have acted other than he did had the person appealing been a male or full-time employee, or someone who had not previously brought proceedings against the respondent.	

16.	We dismiss all the claimant’s complaints.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:		4 – 8; 11 – 12; and 14 April 2005, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: