In January 2019, the claimant contacted the respondent’s Belfast branch relating to a meat-plant looking full-time dayshift workers.   The claimant outlined that he was looking for a change as he was in night-shift work.  The claimant was subsequently told that he would have to make an online application.  This was submitted but he was unsure whether he had been registered.  He was told to call Ms Katke in the Portadown Branch.   He again was asked if he was registered and he outlined that he was in the past but unsure if it was still in place.

Ms Katke asked the claimant to meet her at 10am the next morning.  However, when the claimant asked for the address he was told that it could not be given.  Instead, he was told that it would be text to him.  This did not happen.  The claimant was asked for a series of documents which he had except one, the birth certificate.

The claimant did not think it was fatal to his application to register with the respondent.   The claimant felt that Ms Katke was oddly unreasonable with him and that she hung up the phone.  When asked he stated that it was because she knew his age or the previous complaint he had against the respondent.  The previous complaint which the claimant referred to appeared show that he had the impression that he had won a claim against the respondent, but this was not the case. It in fact related to a payment made to the claimant by his former solicitors as they failed to present a previous ET1 on time.

The claimant made a complaint to the respondent and he met with Ms Thompson from the Head Office.  She stated that he was not treated differently as a result of his previous complaint and stated that not giving the address or not allowing the application to proceed without birth certificate was standard practice and the rules of the client.  The claimant then brought a complaint to the Tribunal.   He also had a subsequent meeting with the Senior Operations Manager of the respondent where she apologised for the conduct of Ms Katke and offered the claimant the job he had sought.  The claimant refused this with reasons.

He stated that the issue was with the Tribunal and asked the Senior Operations Manager to make a proposal about how it could be resolved.  He also stated that he was taking the action in the public interest for those over 50 years of age.  There was also a suggestion raised that Ms Katke favoured foreign workers and her reaction was due to the claimant being ‘local’.  This race discrimination claim was withdrawn prior to hearing.

The basis of the claim was that he was victimised.  The Tribunal found that the claimant had made misleading statements about having won a claim against the respondent previously.  In fact, it had been withdrawn with the payment being made by his solicitors at the time.  Furthermore, there was misleading evidence about the nature of the correspondence the claimant had with the respondent.  Indeed, the respondent’s witness made it clear that she had kept the information about his previous claim confidential.

This was clear with the Senior Operations Manager being unaware that a previous claim had been brought. The Tribunal noted that it was for the claimant to prove that the person against whom the allegation of victimisation was made was aware of the previous complaint. The Tribunal found that the idea that Ms Katke would have been aware of the previous claim was speculative.  The Tribunal did note that the call could have been handled better but it did not lead to a claim.

Practical Lessons

This case was primarily one of victimisation arising out of a strange set of circumstances.  The first was that the previous claim was actually withdrawn against the respondent yet the claimant was under the impression that he had won the claim.   The first lesson arises from the previous case in that legal representatives must pay special attention to the time limits involved in employment cases.

The second is that for a victimisation claim to be successful it is for the claimant to prove that the respondent was aware of the previous complaint.  This was not the case here so no claim could be substantiated.  It was recognised by all concerned that the phone call could have been handled better but poor service does not amount to a Tribunal claim.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/