THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:  667/06

CLAIMANT:			Paul Cavanagh

RESPONDENTS:		1.  Department of Finance and Personnel
				2.  Rates Collection Agency

DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The decision of the industrial tribunal dated 8 May 2007 is confirmed.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:		Mr S A Crothers

Appearances:
The claimant represented himself.
The respondents were represented by Miss J Simpson, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Departmental Solicitor’s Office.

 1.	The claimant sought a review of the industrial tribunal’s decision of 8 May 2007 which decided that he could not properly compare himself with a female staff officer in the planning department of the Department of the Environment and dismissed his claim for equal pay.

 2.	By e-mail correspondence of 20 May and 4 June 2007 the claimant sought a review under Rule 34(2) (d) and (e) of the Industrial Tribunal Rules of Procedure.  The relevant part of the Rule states as follows

“(3)	subject to paragraph (4), decisions may be reviewed on the following grounds only –

…..

(d)	new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing to which the decision relates, provided that its existence could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen at the time; or

		(e)	the interests of justice requires such a review”.

 3.	The claimant gave evidence before the tribunal.  He referred to the Northern Ireland Executive Ministerial Code as provided for in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland (St Andrew’s Agreement) Act 2006.  He had not referred to this Code in correspondence requesting a review hearing but did make reference to Section 23(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in that correspondence.  He contended that the Code established the single source argument referred to in the tribunal’s decision.  In relation to the separate ground of the interests of justice he referred to the fact that the Northern Ireland Civil Service had almost 30,000 employees and that thousands of civil servants could be affected by the tribunal’s decision if they could not compare themselves with other civil servants because of where they worked.  The claimant also contended that the new evidence he intended to rely on was likely to have an important influence on the result of the case.

REASONS

 4.	The tribunal examined carefully the portions of the Ministerial Code being relied on by the claimant to establish a single source argument through the Offices of First Minster and Deputy Minister.  This argument had not been raised by the claimant at the tribunal hearing on 16 April 2007.  The Northern Ireland Executive was established on 8 May 2007 when the relevant legislation was also enacted.  Miss Simpson contended for the respondent that the Ministerial Code could not possibly be relied on, firstly on the basis that the legislation was not in force at the date of the tribunal hearing on 16 April 2007 and secondly that the Code itself indicates that certain matters including matters which cut across the responsibility of two or more Ministers and matters requiring the adoption of a common position were merely to be brought to the attention of the Executive Committee by the responsible Minister to be considered by the Committee.  Taking into account the other aspects of the Ministerial Code being relied on by the claimant, she urged the tribunal to find that the new legislation was not something to which the tribunal decision relates and even if that were not the case it had nothing to do with the single source argument referred to in the tribunal’s decision of 8 May 2007.  Furthermore, she added that the claimant had been given time to consider various issues before the tribunal commenced on 16 April 2007 and that the claimant had not raised such issues in his written submission to the tribunal.  Moreover, his argument under the heading of ‘Interests of Justice’ was essentially that he was unhappy with the tribunal’s finding, that the decision affects a lot of people, and therefore it was not in the interests of justice.

 5.	The tribunal finds itself in agreement with the respondents’ arguments and concludes that its original decision of 8 May 2007 be confirmed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	27 June 2007, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: