THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:    2168/10

CLAIMANT:	Matthew Davis

RESPONDENT:	Jim Gray  (T/A Jim Gray Cabinet Makers)

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented a claim to the Industrial Tribunal within the period of three months from the effective date of termination of his employment, and therefore his claim is dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman:	Mr Uel A Crothers

Members:	Miss Margaret Galloway
	Mr Ian Carroll

Appearances:

The claimant did not appear and was not represented.

The respondent appeared and represented himself.

THE CLAIM

1.	The claimant claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent.  The respondent denied these allegations in his response.

THE ISSUES

2.	The issues before the tribunal were as follows:-

	(i)	Whether the claim for unfair dismissal was presented within a period of three months from the effective date of termination of the claimant’s employment, or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented before the end of the period of three months.

	(ii)	Whether, if the claim was in time, the claimant was unfairly dismissed.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

3.	The tribunal heard evidence from the respondent and considered the claimant’s claim form presented to the tribunal together with documentation attached to the respondent’s response.

FINDINGS OF FACT

4.	Having considered the evidence insofar as same related to the first issue before it, the tribunal made the following findings of fact, on the balance of probabilities:- 

	(i)	The effective date of termination of the claimant’s employment was 4 June 2010.  He presented his claim to the tribunal on 7 September 2010.  The claimant’s claim form did not explain why it had not been presented to the Tribunal until 7 September 2010.

THE LAW

5.	The law in relation to the period for presenting a tribunal claim is set out in Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.  The tribunal also considered the leading case of Palmer and Saunders  v  South End-on-Sea Borough Council (1984) IRLR 119.  This case held that the meaning of words “reasonably practicable” lies somewhere between reasonable on the one hand and reasonably physically capable of being done on the other.  It further held that the best approach is to read “practicable” as the equivalent of “feasible” and ask “was it reasonably feasible to present the complaint to the Employment Tribunal within the relevant three months?”.

CONCLUSIONS

6.	Having applied the relevant principles of law to the facts, the tribunal concludes, in the absence of any evidence from the claimant to the contrary, that it was reasonably practicable in the sense of being reasonably feasible for the claimant to have presented his claim to the Industrial Tribunal within three months from 4 June 2010.  It is therefore unnecessary for the tribunal to consider the second issue before it, and the claimant’s claim is therefore dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:      4 January 2011, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: