THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	275/11

CLAIMANT:			Michael Barry Bleeks

RESPONDENT:		Central Laundries

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
WRITTEN REASONS

The decision of the tribunal is that the claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  The decision was given orally at the conclusion of the hearing of the hearing and written reasons are set out below.

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

Appearances:
The claimant did not appear and was not represented.
The respondent was represented by Mr M Mason, of ELC.

1.	This was a pre-hearing review to determine whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal in view of the provisions of Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 regarding the time-limit for presenting his claim.  

2.	The claimant had telephoned the Office of the Tribunals on 3 May 2011 to state that he could not get a day off work to attend the pre-hearing review and that he was therefore considering withdrawing his claim.  He stated he would not be attending the pre-hearing review on 4 May 2011 and that he would be sending an e-mail that evening, ie later on 3 May 2011, to explain the situation.  No e-mail arrived.  A tribunal clerk left a voicemail on the claimant’s mobile phone later on 3 May 2011.  There was no telephone call or e-mail in reply.

3.	The hearing was listed for 11.00 am on 4 May 2011.  The hearing actually commenced at 11.05 am.  A further check was made at that point to see if there had been any e-mail or telephone call received from the claimant and to see if the claimant had turned up at the tribunal building.  No e-mail or telephone call record was found and the claimant had not turned up at the tribunal building.  

4.	Mr Mason, on behalf of the respondent, made an application for the tribunal to determine that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint of unfair dismissal.  He stated that the onus was on the claimant to establish that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time-limit.  It was not in dispute that the claim had been presented on 12 January 2011.  The claimant had accepted that at a Case Management Discussion on 13 April 2011 that he had been dismissed on 29 September 2010.  On that basis the claim was approximately two weeks out of time.  No evidence had been presented to discharge the onus of proof which lay on the claimant.  

5.	It is apparent from the claim form submitted by the claimant that the claimant spoke to his solicitor after an internal meeting with the respondent on 10 September 2010 and also that he told Mr McAleese, the respondent’s managing director, on 13 October 2010 that he would be lodging unfair dismissal proceedings.  

6.	In those circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the claimant would, if he had attended the hearing, had been able to discharge the onus of proof.  In any event, the claimant has not attended the hearing and has adduced no evidence in relation to the issue to be determined at this pre-hearing review.  

7.	The claim of unfair dismissal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

8.	The respondent indicated that it would make a costs application in writing and, if it does so, that will be listed for a separate costs hearing.  

Vice President:

Date and place of hearing:	4 May 2011, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: