[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Ward v Calcast Limited & Ors [2005] NIIT 249_03 (23 September 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2005/249_03.html Cite as: [2005] NIIT 249_03, [2005] NIIT 249_3

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 
FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REF: 249/03FET

CLAIMANT: Terence Anthony Ward

RESPONDENTS: 1. Calcast Limited

2. Cecil Craig

3. Trevor McGregor

4. Jaci Carson

5. Terry Mulvey

DECISION

The Tribunal dismisses the claimant's claims for religious discrimination.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman Mr B Greene

Members Mrs M Heaney

Mr J Collins

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person.

The first, second, third and fifth respondents were represented by Miss Toolan, Engineering Employers Federation.

The fourth respondent did not attend and was not represented.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

1. The Tribunal heard evidence on behalf of the claimant from Martin Joseph Carlin and Kevin Ward and for the respondent from Sinead McCurry, Cecil Craig, Trevor McGregor and Terry Mulvey. The Tribunal also received 6 bundles of agreed documents amounting to 152 pages.

The Claim and Defence

2. The claimant claimed religious discrimination. The respondents denied the claimant's claims.

THE ISSUES

3. (a) Whether the respondents had unlawfully discriminated against the claimant

on the ground of religious belief when they appointed Trevor McGregor, instead of the claimant, to represent them at daily production meetings in the absence of the usual representative? It is the claimant's case that he had seniority over Trevor McGregor.

(b) Did the respondents subject the claimant to harassment following upon his complaint about the alleged discriminatory treatment and in particular did this alleged harassment include the making of false allegations against him?

(c) Did the respondents repeat the alleged religious discrimination when on 23 June 2003 Trevor McGregor was delegated again to attend the daily production meetings instead of the claimant?

(d) If the claimant succeeds in any of the above what is the appropriate remedy?

FINDINGS OF FACT

4. (a) The first respondent employed the claimant as a buyer from 2 August 2000

to 25 June 2003 when the claimant resigned.

(b) The second respondent, the first respondent's Purchasing Department manager, had sought out the claimant for employment by reason of his previous good service with the first respondent.

(c) The claimant and the fourth respondent are Catholic as was the first respondent's then general manager, Sinead McCurry. The second and third respondents are Protestant. The Tribunal was not advised of the fifth respondent's religion.

(d) The first respondent held a daily production meeting attended by all departmental managers or heads and the general manager.

(e) The second respondent attended the meeting daily unless he was unavailable to attend. He had not attended for 7 to 10 days in October 2002 when he was taken ill unexpectedly. He also did not attend for 5 days when he was off on holiday for 1 week from 24 to 31 March 2003. He did not attend on 1 or 2 other occasions.

(f) On Thursday 19 March 2003 the first respondent had a departmental meeting with all staff, including the claimant, when he set out in written form the duties each member of staff was to carry out between 24 and 28 March 2003. In that written list of duties the third respondent was designated to attend the daily production meeting in the absence of the second respondent. The claimant did not raise any objection to this proposal. Neither did the claimant raise any objection with the second respondent throughout Friday 20 March 2003.

(g) On 24 March 2003 the claimant sought a copy of the first respondent's sectarian harassment policy from Personnel. This was reported to the general manager who spoke to the claimant about this later the same day. The claimant revealed to the general manager that he was not happy with the second respondent's decision to send the third respondent to the daily production meeting.

(h) In the Villager pub in the evening of 24 March 2003 the claimant advised the fifth respondent that he was thinking about making a religious discrimination claim. He also offered the fifth respondent a set of keys, probably to do with the claimant's work, but the fifth respondent refused to accept them. A work set of keys were delivered to work the next day by Kevin Ward, the claimant's son.

(i) The claimant was off work through illness from 25 March to 7 April 2003 and was hospitalised during that period.

(j) The second respondent returned to work on 31 March 2003 and the general manager advised him about the claimant's annoyance and what he had done. The general manager had a number of further meetings with the second respondent at which the matter was discussed.

(k) The claimant returned to work on 7 April 2003 and the second respondent held a return to work interview with him in accordance with company policy. The second respondent filled in on the form, inter alia, "verbal warning next time" in response to the question "Possible New Warning Status". The entry greatly annoyed the claimant who interpreted this as a verbal warning. This was not a verbal warning.

(l) On the same day the claimant lodged a grievance alleging religious discrimination. The alleged discrimination was the appointment of the third respondent to attend the daily production meetings which he alleged gave a seniority to the third respondent which was due to the claimant. The claimant alleged that this was done on sectarian grounds. He further alleged that the return to work interview, specifically the entry "verbal warning next time" amounted to continuing sectarian harassment by the second respondent.

(m) The general manager convened a grievance hearing on 17 April 2003 to consider the claimant's grievance. The general manager did not follow either the first respondent's grievance procedure or its Sectarian Harassment in the Workplace Policy.

(n) By letter of 1 May 2003 the general manager wrote to the claimant intimating that she could not find any evidence of religious discrimination or harassment. She further intimated that she could find no evidence of harassment of the claimant within his department or throughout the factory as he had alleged subsequent to the lodging of his grievance.

(o) The claimant replied by e-mail of 6 May 2003 rejecting the general manager's findings. The general manager replied by proposing a further meeting to enable the claimant to explain why he believed her findings were incorrect and to deal with other allegations of harassment made by the claimant.

(p) On 13 May 2003 the general manager convened a meeting with the claimant as she had proposed.

(q) A resolution meeting was held by the general manager with the claimant and the second respondent to deal with matters that had arisen at the meeting on 13 May 2003. During the meeting the second respondent apologised to the claimant if he had construed the appointment of the third respondent to attend the daily production meetings as religious discrimination as that was never his intention. It was made clear that the second respondent would continue to delegate whom he thought appropriate to attend the daily production meetings, in his absence. The claimant intimated that he would apologise also to the second respondent if the latter made his apology publicly.

(r) A further meeting was held on 16 May 2003. At the meeting the second respondent repeated his apology to all staff in the Purchasing Department. He also intimated his intention to delegate whomsoever he thought fit to attend the daily production meeting in his absence. The claimant did not challenge either statement and made an unreserved apology to the second respondent.

(s) On 25 June 2003 the third respondent was again delegated to attend the daily production meeting and the claimant resigned. The Tribunal allowed the claimant to amend his claim by adding this incident as another act of religious discrimination.

THE LAW

5. (a) It is unlawful to discriminate against another on the ground of his religious

belief (Article 3(7) Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998).

(b) Religious discrimination is to treat someone less favourably than another on the ground of his religion (Article 3(2)(a) Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998).

(c) A person commits an act of religious discrimination where he victimises another by treating him less favourably than other persons in those circumstances or because that other has brought proceedings against the discriminator under the 1998 Order or gives evidence or information in connection with proceedings or investigation under the Order or alleges that the discriminator or any other person has contravened the Order or has done anything else under or by reference to the Order in relation to the discriminator or any other person (Articles 3(4) and (5) Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998).

APPLICATION OF THE LAW AND FINDINGS OF FACT TO THE ISSUES

6. (a) The claimant was senior to his fellow departmental colleagues, the third and

fourth respondents. This was never disputed by the respondents. The claimant alone possessed a copy set of keys to the office of his manager, the second respondent.

(b) The daily production meeting is an important daily meeting within the first respondent's business. It is attended by senior staff ie departmental managers or heads.

(c) The Tribunal is not persuaded that attendance at the daily production meetings conferred seniority on anyone attending.

(d) The Tribunal is not persuaded that the claimant held the view that attendance at the daily production meeting of itself conferred seniority on the person attending. In so concluding the Tribunal was influenced by the following matters:-

(i) On 19 March 2003 at a departmental meeting the second respondent discussed and gave in written form his arrangements for the Purchasing Department while he was on holiday from 24 to 31 March 2003 which included the delegation of the third respondent to attend the daily production meetings.

(ii) The claimant did not raise any objection at the meeting on 19 March 2003 to the third respondent's attendance at the daily production meeting.

(iii) On 20 March 2003 the claimant did not raise any objection with the second respondent before he left on holiday.

(iv) In October 2002 when the second respondent was off work ill the claimant allocated the third respondent to attend the daily production meeting and not himself.

(v) Nor did the claimant object when the fourth respondent was allocated to attend the daily production meeting.

(e) There is not any evidence before the Tribunal to support the claimant's contention that the third respondent was delegated to attend the daily production meetings because he was a Protestant. In so concluding the Tribunal was influenced by the following matters:-

(i) The second respondent offered a plausible explanation for allocating the third respondent to attend the daily production meeting from 24-28 March 2003. The explanation is that the second respondent believed quality assurance issues would come up at the daily production meetings as a quality audit was being carried out from 24-26 March 2003 and the third respondent was responsible for the collation of quality assurance documents.

(ii) The second respondent's evidence on the explanation was not challenged.

(iii) The second respondent had actively sought out the claimant for the position he occupied within the Purchasing Department which does not sit easily with someone alleged to be a discriminator.

(iv) Evidence adduced from the claimant's union representative was to the effect that he would be surprised if the second respondent engaged in religious discrimination.

(f) The delegation of the third respondent to attend the daily production meeting and not the claimant does not amount to less favourable treatment of the claimant.

(g) There was therefore not any act of religious discrimination by allocating the third respondent to attend the daily production meetings from 24 to 28 March 2003.

(h) In support of his contention of harassment the claimant relies on the return to work interview of 7 April 2003 and the statements made by the second, third and fourth respondents of 7, 9 and 12 May 2003.

(i) The Tribunal does not accept that these items amounted to harassment. In so concluding the Tribunal was influenced by the following matters:-

(i) There is not any persuasive evidence that the fourth and fifth respondents' statements contain false allegations against the claimant.

(ii) There is not persuasive evidence that the third respondent's statement contains false allegations. It contains one inaccuracy, that the claimant was drunk in the Villager pub which Sinead McCurry accepted was her inaccurate record and not the third respondent's. Otherwise the statement contains contested matters, opinion and hearsay.

(iii) The return to work interview report sheet did not amount to a verbal warning of the claimant though it is not clear why the particular wording was used.

(j) The Tribunal is not persuaded that the delegation of the third respondent to attend the daily purchase meeting on 25 June 2003 amounted to an act of religious discrimination. In so concluding the Tribunal was influenced by the following matters:-

(i) For the reasons stated above this act does not amount to an act of religious discrimination.

(ii) At the resolution meeting on 14 May 2003 the second respondent made it clear that he would continue to delegate people to attend the daily production meeting as he saw fit.

(iii) The claimant was at the meeting of 14 May 2003 and he did not object to the second respondent's statement.

(iv) Later on at the same meeting the claimant unreservedly apologised to the second respondent. This is difficult to understand unless the claimant accepted the second respondent's proposed future action in relation to this matter.

(k) The claimant's decision not to give evidence because "I don't want to be cross-examined" was a significant factor in the Tribunal's findings and in its decision.

(l) Accordingly the claimant's claims are dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 19 - 23 September 2005 and 1 - 3 November 2005, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: