THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:  614/10

CLAIMANT:			Brendan Joseph Conway

RESPONDENTS: 		North Sec Security Services (UK) Limited

DECISION
The tribunal unanimously decided that the claimant had failed to present his claims for unfair dismissal and for payment for key-holding within the required period of three months. The tribunal further unanimously decided that he had failed to establish that it had not been reasonably practicable for him to do so. His claims are therefore dismissed as the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with them.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:			Mr Trevor Browne
Members:  			Ms Gail Ferguson
                              		Mrs Mary-Jo McReynolds

Appearances: The claimant represented himself.
The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The respondent had not made any response to the claim in time or at all, and had not requested any extension of time, and therefore was precluded from taking any part in the proceedings.

ISSUES

1.	The claimant had previously brought successful industrial tribunal claims against the respondent, which resulted in him being awarded compensation in January 2010. The present claims appear to be in addition to his previous case, arising out of the same set of facts. Neither of the present claims was before the last tribunal.

2.	The claimant appeared to be under the impression that the chairman of the last tribunal encouraged him to bring the present claims. The tribunal can find no support for this view in the original decision in January 2010, nor in the review hearing decision of March 2010.

LAW AND CONCLUSIONS

3.	Both of the present heads of claim are subject to the test under the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, whereby a tribunal “shall not” consider a complaint unless it is presented to the tribunal within three months of its occurrence. Both heads of claim were presented outside the three months.

4.	The only alternative to the three-month time limit is if the tribunal is satisfied by the claimant that it was not “reasonably practicable” for the complaint to be presented within that time. 

5.	The burden of establishing that it was not reasonably practicable rests on the claimant; the standard of proof is on the “balance of probabilities” test. The tribunal explained this to the claimant, and invited him to place before it any explanation for the delay. He did not advance any reasons or produce any material.
 
6.	The tribunal therefore concluded that there was nothing to indicate that it had not been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claims within time. The tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction to deal with them and they are dismissed.

Chairman:				

Date and place of hearing:	12 October 2010, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: