Background: 

The claimant worked as a cleaner, initially through an agency, and then as an employee of the respondent.   The respondent had a registered office in County Monaghan, Republic of Ireland yet had a business in Coleraine, Northern Ireland.  

After a month or two the claimant received a contract but received contracts on a monthly basis, most months.  The Tribunal noted that the employment was largely uneventful except the employee stating that between May 2020 and February 2021 there were issues in terms of getting time off work.  She states the supervisor, Mr Millican, was reluctant to grant it. This arose when the claimant sought leave to attend the Polish Consulate and another situation in which the claimant became ill at work and she was refused when she asked to go home.  The Tribunal notes that there was little elaboration on these events.    

A further issue relates to the health difficulties suffered by the claimant’s 16 year old son.  This did require some care on an urgent basis due to its unpredictability and susceptibility although the Tribunal did not elaborate upon the specifics due to it being delicate, confidential and relating to a minor.  The claimant stated she may need some time off in October/November 2020 to leave her son to the airport.  This stated ‘I might need time off’ which the Tribunal regarded as being conditional.  

In February 2021, the claimant was at work when she received a call and text regarding her son. This caused her alarm and she decided to leave the work premises telling Mr Millican on the way past that she needed to get home fast.  This led to her son being hospitalised.  This led to a text exchange between the claimant and Mr Millican with Mr Millican checking to see if everything was okay and the claimant stating that it was a private matter and that she could not get to work tomorrow.  This continued and another medical episode occurred with the claimant stating that she could not work on 8thFebruary and she would hopefully get a sick line.  She sought this and it was received by post some two days later – 10th February.  On 9th February the claimant received a letter which stated that the claimant’s temporary contract of employment was to end and her P45 would be issued.  It was signed by an unidentified person in the HR Department. The claimant insisted she received two letters at this point one dated in January and one in February both relating to the same thing – that being her dismissal.  

Outcome: 

The first issue was the matter of jurisdiction, but based upon the habitual place of work the Tribunal found that they did have jurisdiction to hear the claim.   The Tribunal’s conclusion was that the termination of the employment was not connected with the statutory issue asserted under Article 85A relating to time off for dependants.  Due to the lack of continuous service of over one year, the unfair dismissal claim being brought by the claimant rested on the issue of discrimination and the dismissal relating to reliance upon statutory rights.  On the basis that it was not found, it was held that there was no statutory jurisdiction for the Tribunal to hear the claim of unfair dismissal.    

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

This case demonstrates the importance of keeping accurate evidence.  The issue here related to the letters received by the claimant and how it coincided with the issue affecting her son.   The Tribunal was befuddled by the January letter which had ‘copy’ written on it and whether it was ever sent in January.  It will be for the Tribunal to piece these matters together and make findings of fact.  Here, there was insufficient evidence to link it to a discriminatory basis therefore the claim failed.  

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