THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	3753/09

CLAIMANT:			Joanne Baker

RESPONDENTS:		1.	Danny Morton
				2.	Studio Inns Ltd

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal, on a preliminary issue, is that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim of sex discrimination.  The claim was not presented within the specified time-limit, and it is not just and equitable, in all the circumstances of the case, for the tribunal to consider the claim despite the fact that it is out-of-time.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone):		Mr D Buchanan 

Appearances:
The claimant, Ms Baker, appeared in person.
The respondents were represented by Mr S Lennon, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by R P Crawford & Company, Solicitors.

1.	(i)	By a claim form dated 2 March 2009 and presented to the tribunal on 9 March 2009 the claimant, Ms Baker, alleged that she had been unlawfully discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of her sex.	
			
	(ii)	The respondents contended that the claim was out-of-time, and that it should have been presented not later than 27 January 2009.  In order to determine this issue, I heard evidence from Ms Baker, and had regard to documents produced by her.

I find the facts set out in the following paragraphs.	
			
2.	(i)	The claimant worked as a barmaid for the respondents from 3 May 2008 until her dismissal, purportedly on the ground of redundancy, on 27 October 2008.  She alleged that a few days after she was dismissed, because of an alleged downturn in the business, she was replaced by a male employee.  She therefore believed that she had been dismissed on the grounds of her sex.	
			
	(ii)	The statutory grievance procedures do not apply here, for it was a dismissal, and the statutory dismissal procedures do not apply because Ms Baker had not been employed for a year.

She did, however, attempt to obtain redress by phoning the employers several times and by writing a letter to them on 12 November 2008.  This letter was ignored, as were subsequent letters written on Ms Baker’s behalf by the Citizens Advice Bureau.  One of these was written on 13 January 2009 (before the time-limit for commencing proceedings on 27 January 2009 had expired) and another was written on 17 February 2009.  The emphasis of both these letters was on negotiating a settlement with the respondents without the need for recourse to legal proceedings.	
			
3.	(i)	Although Ms Baker had no legal knowledge, and did rely heavily on advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau, I am satisfied, despite suggestions in her evidence to the contrary, that by the end of 2008 or early January 2009 any expectation she had that phone calls and correspondence to the respondents might result in this matter being resolved to her satisfaction were falling rapidly.  Indeed, by this stage she was no longer seeking her job back.	
			
	(ii)	Of more significance is the fact that it is clear from the letter written on her behalf by the Citizens Advice Bureau on 13 January 2009 (a letter which she had seen and approved) that she had been advised on or before that date to complete a claim form for an industrial tribunal hearing.  At this time she had had a claim form in her possession for about six weeks so the possibility of, or necessity for, proceedings seems to have been in her mind.	
			
	(iii)	There is no compelling evidence before me why she waited from 13 January 2009 until March 2009 to start proceedings.  Indeed, although she signed her claim form on 2 March 2009, it was not presented until 9 March 2009.	

4.	In these circumstances, I consider that the evidence before me is such that I should not exercise my discretion to extend time.  The tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to consider this claim, and I dismiss it.

5.	The respondent’s counsel made an application for costs, which I considered entirely without merit, and refused.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	29 September 2009, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: