BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Carson v Hynds (t/a Hynds Architectural Systems Ltd) (Application for Review) [2003] NIIT 1262_02 (15 June 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2003/33.html Cite as: [2003] NIIT 1262_02, [2003] NIIT 1262_2 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Carson v Hynds (t/a Hynds Architectural Systems Ltd) (Application for Review) [2003] NIIT 1262_02 (15 June 2003)
CASE REF: 1262/02
APPLICANT: David Carson
RESPONDENT: Michael Hynds
T/A Hynds Architectural Systems Limited
In exercise of the power conferred upon me by Rule 11 (5) of Schedule 1 to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations (NI) 1996, I refuse the application by the Applicant for a Review on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
REASONS
1. A Decision was promulgated on 28 November 2002 in which the Tribunal unanimously held that the Respondent did not unlawfully deduct the Applicant's wages contrary to Part IV of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996. The Applicant's complaint was, therefore, dismissed.
2. By letter dated 3 December 2002, the Applicant wrote the Tribunal as follows;
"Further to your letter of 28 November 2002 with regard to the Decision of the Tribunal, I am angry and feel that I have been discriminated against because I didn't have Counsel to argue my case. I could not afford Counsel as having been "got rid of" by the Respondent I had no option but to take work outside N. Ireland.
It also appears from the Decision that not one of the points that I made have been taken into account:
2(i) I commenced work on a verbal agreement that some overtime is included in the Salary, overtime which would be normally 2-3 hours per fortnight.
2(ii) I commenced working overtime on a verbal agreement. The "ex gratia" payment was not for work over the Halloween break.
2(iii) The evidence was there in plain black and white how the hours were broken down. As I did not receive a written contract this was always going to be open for discussion. Moreover, I stopped working overtime on 22 February 02 (as stated) and not "5 March or later".
It looks to me that it doesn't pay to be an honest dedicated employee, and I would not be in the least bit surprised if the Respondent did not have a "contact" within the Office of the Industrial Tribunal.
I thank you for making the Respondent's day, he is a lieing (sic.) ignorant B*****d who will be laughing at my expence (sic.).
To conclude, I totally disagree with the Decision and Appeal it most strongly".
3. The Applicant's letter of 3 December 2002 has been treated as an application for a Review of the Tribunal's Decision of 28 November 2002. I have carefully considered each aspect of the Applicant's letter of 3 December 2002, and revised the evidence given to the Tribunal at the hearing of the complaint on 11 November 2002. The Applicant is asking the Tribunal to re-open and reconsider this evidence, which it has already done when reaching the Decision as promulgated. In that Decision, the Tribunal noted that it had "considered all the evidence heard in this case, all the submissions, and all references and case law cited…". The letter of 3 December 2002 is an attempt to have the Decision reconsidered on the facts found, without illustrating any specific grounds for review as provided in Rule 11 of Schedule 1 to the Industrial Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations (NI) 1996. I have carefully considered the matters raised in the letter of 3 December 2002 and consider they appear to allege that the Decision reached was one which no fair and reasonable Tribunal could come to. In particular, the Applicant appears to allege some bias on behalf of the Tribunal, which most emphatically is not the case. The Tribunal was at all times fair and impartial to both parties to this complaint, and came with no prior knowledge of either. The Tribunal showed no prejudice to either party before it, and made impartial findings of fact upon which it made a justifiable Decision. Therefore, I consider that the letter of 3 December 2002 does not come within any of the provisions of Rule 11(1) of Schedule 1 to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations (NI) 1996 for the purposes of a Review of its Decision of 28 November 2002.
4. It is therefore not appropriate to Review the Decision of the Tribunal, as in my opinion it has no reasonable prospect of success.
Chairman:
Date:
