Sheridan vs Peninsula Business Services,B Stern-Gillet
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 2018 |
| Respondent | B Stern-Gillet,Peninsula Business Services |
| Docket Number | 02310/16IT |
| Court | Industrial Tribunal (NI) |
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 2310/16
2311/16
2813/17
CLAIMANTS: Lynn Sheridan
Thomas Dalzell Sheridan
RESPONDENTS: 1. Peninsula Business Services Ltd
2. B Stern-Gillet
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that:-
(1) The claims of the claimants and each of them for unlawful deduction of wages and/or breach of contract, in relation to holiday pay and/or cost of a pass are dismissed, having been withdrawn following settlement between the parties.
(2) The claims of the claimants and each of them for age discrimination are dismissed, following withdrawal in the course of the substantive hearing.
(3) The claim of the second claimant of sex discrimination is dismissed, following withdrawal, in the course of the substantive hearing.
(4) The second claimant was not directly discriminated against by the respondents and each of them, pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended.
(5) The first respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments for the second claimant, pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended.
(6) The first claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed by the first respondent.
(7) The second claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed by the first respondent.
(8) The tribunal makes an award of compensation to be paid by the first respondent to the first claimant in the sum of £12,758.00.
(9) The tribunal makes an award of compensation to be paid by the first respondent to the second claimant in the sum of £18,443.26.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge: Employment Judge Drennan QC
Members: Dr C Ackah
Mr I Atcheson
Appearances:
The claimants were represented by Mr R L McCartney Queen’s Counsel (in a personal capacity).
The respondents were represented by Ms S Bradley, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Mr Potts, Solicitor, of Peninsula Business Services Ltd.
Reasons
1.1 The first claimant presented a claim to the tribunal on 4 November 2016, to which the respondents presented a response to the tribunal on 15 December 2016, in which they denied liability for the said claims set out in the first claimant’s claim form. The second claimant presented a claim to the tribunal on 4 November 2016. The respondents presented a response to the tribunal on 15 December 2016, in which they denied liability for each of the said claims set out in the second claimant’s claim form.
The second claimant presented a further claim to the tribunal on 5 May 2017, to which the respondents presented a response to the tribunal on 22 June 2017 in which they denied liability for the each of the said claims set out in the second claimant’s claim form. The said claims were subsequently made the subject of an Order for Consolidation pursuant to the Rules of Procedure enabling all the said claims, referred to above, to be considered together and by the same tribunal.
In a decision recorded in the Register and issued to the parties on 3 July 2017, the President, at a pre-hearing review, refused the second claimant’s application to amend his claim to add a claim of victimisation, pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended. She also refused the second claimant’s application to include a claim of indirect disability discrimination, pursuant to the 1995 Act, since the disability discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland, unlike the position in Great Britain, does not give the industrial tribunal jurisdiction to hear and determine a complaint of indirect discrimination on the ground of disability.
1.2 At the commencement of the substantive hearing and during the course of the substantive hearing, the claims of the claimants and each of them for age discrimination and/or the claim of the second claimant for sex discrimination were withdrawn and are therefore dismissed. Further, the claim of the claimants and each of them for unlawful deduction of wages and/or breach of contract in relation to holiday pay and/or cost of a pass were withdrawn following settlement between the parties and are therefore dismissed.
1.3 Subject to the foregoing, and in accordance with the tribunal’s normal case-management directions/orders, made at previous Case Management Discussions in this matter but also confirmed at the commencement of this hearing, it was agreed that the following claims by the claimants, and each of them, against the respondents, and each of them, remained to be determined by the tribunal, namely:-
“(i) Whether the second claimant was a disabled person at the material time, pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended; and, if so, whether the second claimant was directly discriminated against by the respondents, and each of them, pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended and/or the first respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments for the second claimant, pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended.
(ii) Whether the claimants, and each of them, were unfairly constructively dismissed by the first respondent.”
It was agreed by the parties, which the Tribunal accepts, that, in relation to the claims of unfair constructive dismissal, no issues of time arose, which required to be determined by the tribunal given the date of resignation by the claimants and said date of presentation of their claims to the tribunal. In relation to the second claimant’s of direct disability discrimination and/or failure by the first respondent to make reasonable adjustments, pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended by the parties, it was agreed, which the Tribunal accepts, that no time-issues relating to those claims, if any, were required to be determined in the course of this substantive hearing; as it was agreed that any act of discrimination and/or duty to make reasonable adjustments required to be determined by the tribunal, pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended, occurred on or about 5 August 2016 (date of meeting – see later), or in the period from the date of the said meeting to the date of the termination of the employment of the second claimant; and the said claims were therefore in time, given the date of presentation of their claims to the tribunal on 4 November 2016.
1.4 At the commencement of the substantive hearing, the claimants, and each of them, confirmed that, if the tribunal found their said dismissal was unfair, that each wished to obtain, by way of remedy, an award of compensation and, in particular, they did not seek an Order of Reinstatement and/or Re-engagement, pursuant to the provisions of Article 147 – 151 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
1.5 At the commencement of the substantive hearing, the respondents’ representative confirmed that the respondents did not accept that the second claimant was a disabled person, who had a disability for the purpose of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and that medical evidence by consultants would require to be heard by the tribunal in order for the tribunal to make a decision on this issue. It was not disputed, by the respondents’ representative, that the first respondent was vicariously liable for the acts of the second respondent and/or any other employee of the first respondent, in relation to any acts or omissions of them, or each of them, for the purposes of these proceedings, pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended, and/or the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
1.6 During the course of the substantive hearing, it was agreed that any allegations which the first claimant had, in relation to her claim of unfair constructive dismissal relating to the alleged actions of Ms W were withdrawn and were not to be proceeded with; with the consequence that the witness statement of Ms W was withdrawn by the respondents and was not admitted in evidence before the tribunal.
2.1 The tribunal heard oral evidence, from...
To continue reading
Request your trial