THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	1667/07

CLAIMANT:		Sharon Elizabeth Gorman

RESPONDENT:		Southern Education and Library Board

DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that, as the claimant’s representative has conceded, the claimant was not dismissed, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the case is dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:		Miss E McCaffrey
Members:		Mr Carroll
			Mr McGuiness

Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr Reid, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Hagan & McConville, Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Ms Finnegan, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Education & Library Board’s Legal Service.

The Issue:

This was an unfair dismissal case. However, as a preliminary issue the respondent’s representative made the panel aware that their position was that the claimant had not been dismissed and both parties agreed this issue had to be addressed as a preliminary issue.  Accordingly we have considered this issue as a preliminary issue.

The Facts:

1.	The facts in this matter were not in dispute.  The claimant had been working in three separate posts as an employee of the respondent.  In her first two posts she was a catering assistant and till operator at Brownlow College.  In her third post she was a cleaner at Lismore College.  She was accused of financial irregularity regarding the handling of cash in her second post.  

2.	There was a police investigation in June 2006, a prosecution ensued and was subsequently dropped by the Public Prosecution Service on 30  November 2006.  The claimant was later required to attend a disciplinary hearing on 4 June 2007 and the outcome of that was that she was dismissed for gross misconduct.  

3.	On appeal however, the claimant was reinstated in full in her post as a cleaner at Lismore College at that location.  In relation to her post as a catering assistant and till operator, the claimant was issued with a final written warning and was transferred to a catering assistant’s job at Carrick Primary School, School Meals Kitchen with slightly different hours to the hours in her previous post.  She had not resumed work after this date and it was the claimant’s stance that she had in effect been dismissed from her post as a result of the disciplinary hearing in June.  She believed she should have been given the option of taking up her old post at Brownlow College, rather than being transferred to a different school.  There was also an allegation on the part of the claimant, which was not substantiated, that the respondent had in some way failed to take account of the decision of an independent appeal panel, which had only given the outcome of its deliberations two working days before the case was heard by the Industrial Tribunal.

The Law And Decision

The respondent’s argument was that because the claimant had been reinstated in one post and her dismissal had been commuted to a final written warning in relation to her other posts, but with a change of work location, she had not been dismissed and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with her claim.

After considering the case law and in particular the decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales in the case of Roberts –v- West Coast Trains Limited [2004] IRLR 788, the claimant’s representative conceded that in the light of that decision and of other relevant case law and given that the claimant’s appeal had been successful and she had been reinstated in the post subject to a final written warning, that the claimant had not been dismissed.

In the light of this concession, and given the relevant case law in relation to this case, it is our finding that the claimant was not dismissed as her appeal was successful and accordingly we have no jurisdiction to deal with her unfair dismissal claim.  The case is therefore dismissed. 

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	29 January 2008, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: