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 >> McDougall v Department for Employment & Le... [2013] NIIT 899_12IT (04 December 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/899_12IT.html Cite as: [2013] NIIT 899_12IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 899/12
CLAIMANT: John McDougall
RESPONDENT: Department for Employment Learning
DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The case is struck out because it is misconceived.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was not present or represented.
The Department was represented by Mr Peter Curran.
REASONS
1. These proceedings were begun by letter dated 14 May 2012, which the claimant sent to the Secretary of the Industrial Tribunals. That letter has been treated as constituting a claim form in these proceedings.
2. According to that letter:
“I was made redundant from John McDougall Flooring Ltd on 24 November 2010. I applied for my redundancy with the Redundancy Payments Service and received a letter on 26 July 2012 informing me that the department had made a decision that I was not entitled to recover any redundancy as in their view the business was transferred to a new employer Danescourt Ltd within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings …”
3. In essence, the claimant’s claim form asserts that he was entitled to a redundancy payment from John McDougall Flooring Ltd, that he did not receive any such payment from that company, that he applied to the Redundancy Payments Service for a payment in respect of redundancy and that his application to the RPS was rejected by the Service.
4. Accordingly, in essence, the claimant’s claim in the present proceedings takes the form of an appeal against the alleged refusal of an application which he had allegedly made to the RPS.
5. However, on the basis of the Department’s contentions (which have not been denied by the claimant), the claimant had made no application to the RPS on or before 26 June 2012. Accordingly, an industrial tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, made on 26 June 2012, in relation to an RPS decision which had not been, and could not have been, made at that time.
6. The claimant did subsequently make an application to the Department, in respect of a redundancy payment, in August 2012. The RPS refused that application in March 2013.
7. I pointed out during the course of a Case Management Discussion in May 2013 (at point 7 of the record of that CMD):
“If the claimant wishes to appeal to the industrial tribunals in relation to the March 2013 refusal of his application for a payment in respect of redundancy pay he will to present a fresh industrial tribunal application, by completing and submitting a fresh industrial tribunal claim form. …”
8. In the Industrial Tribunals Regulations, the term “misconceived” includes situations in which claims have no reasonable prospect of success.
9. I am satisfied that the claimant’s claim in these proceedings falls within that category.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 5 November 2013 at Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
