THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:   731/14

CLAIMANT:			Shona Jane Rollo

RESPONDENTS:		1.	Ruscom Ltd
				2.	Stuart Dawson

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that the application to amend the original claim form was unnecessary, although is seemed no more than an attempt to insert matters relating to the evidential basis of the claim already made in the original claim form.  The second claim form is accepted as an addition to the first.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President (sitting alone):		Mr N Kelly

Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and was not represented.
The respondent were represented by Mrs L Sheridan, of Peninsula Business Services Ltd.

1.	The claimant in her original claim form had already referred to an alleged ongoing pattern of harassment from 2011 onwards.  She had stated in that claim form:-

“This is not the first time I have been victim to harassment and intimidating behaviour from Stuart Dawson.  It has been a consistent theme in my employment since 2011 when I rejected his sexual advances towards me after a Christmas function.”

2.	Following discussion with the parties, I directed that an amendment was unnecessary  That proposed amendment had been set out in a format of an additional claim form but, in essence, it simply provides in more detail what is alleged to be the evidential basis for a claim which has already been articulated, however briefly, in the original claim form.  It therefore does not require an amendment and does not amount to an amendment as such.  However, for the sake of clarity, it is allowed as an addition to the original claim.

3.	The claimant in part of her further claim form refers to the second-named respondent wearing what appears to be an Ulster rugby shirt on occasion.  This appears to be the only reference to anything which could conceivably amount to a claim of unlawful religious or political discrimination.  I pointed out to the claimant that no such claim is currently before the tribunal and that the tribunal is looking solely at a claim of sex discrimination.  

4.	The claimant became emotional on occasions and indicated that she wished to raise at the substantive hearing of this matter an allegation that the second-named respondent had continued to contact her either directly or using the name of another employee.  I pointed out to the claimant that she was still employed by the first-named respondent and it was inevitable that there would have to be ongoing contact in relation to that continued employment.  However, I asked the respondents’ representative to advise the second-named respondent that it might be better if he refrained from any such contact until the claim had been determined.  It would be better if any necessary contact with the claimant which arose as a result of her employment should be dealt with by someone else in that organisation.  

5.	There was a heated discussion involving discovery.  It would appear that the claimant has produced a list of documentation comprising some 368 pages.  It cannot be received by e-mail by the respondents’ representative system.  Given the proximity of the hearing and the need to ensure that discovery was completed.  I directed that the claimant should arrange to meet the respondents’ representative no later than 5.00 pm on Friday 5 September 2014 to provide her with the original documentation.  The respondents’ representative will take that original documentation for photocopying and will return same within one week.  The claimant was unable to afford photocopying or indeed postage of this documentation.  

6.	The directions already issued to the exchange of witness statements stand and must be adhered to by both parties.  I directed that the claimant should attempt to send the witness statements, from her and her witnesses, to the respondents’ representative by e-mail, but that she should immediately check with the respondents’ representative, by telephone, to ensure that they have been received.  If they had not been received by e-mail, she should put them in the post immediately.  The same applies to the respondents’ representative in relation to the provision of witness statements from the respondents.

7.	Following discussion, I directed that this should case now be listed for five days, ie from:-

		20 – 24 October 2014

	The panel will read the witness statements and to the extent the witness statements refer to parts of the agreed bundle, those parts of the agreed bundle, between 10.00 am and 1.00 pm on the first day of the hearing.  The parties were directed to take an early lunch and that the hearing will commence promptly at 1.00 pm on the first day of the hearing and at 10.00 am on the second, third, fourth and fifth days.

Vice President:

Date and place of hearing:	3 September 2014, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

Notice

1.	If any party fails and/or is unable to comply with any of the above Orders, any application arising out of such failure or inability to comply must be made promptly to the tribunal and in accordance with the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005.

2.	Failure to comply with any of these Orders may result in a Costs Order or a Preparation Time Order or a Wasted Costs Order or an Order that the whole or part of the claim, or as the case may be, the response may be struck out and, where appropriate, the respondent may be debarred from responding to the claim altogether.

3.	Under Article 9(4) of the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement to grant discovery and inspection of documents under Rule 10(2)(d) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005 shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding Level 3 on the standard scale - £1,000 at 3 September 2007, but subject to alteration from time to time.

4.	A party may apply to the tribunal to vary or revoke any of the above Orders in accordance with the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005.