|
Case number: 2300162/2001
b/jm/et
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Applicant Mr S Bryson
And
Respondent Microtech Computer Services Ltd
DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
HELD AT: London South ON: 13 March 2001
CHAIRMAN: Mr R D Salter MEMBERS: Mr K Alam,
Mr G Newton
Appearances
The applicant: in person
For respondent: Mr J Marsh-Consultant
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal
is that it has no jurisdiction to hear the claim of race discrimination.
SUMMARY REASONS
1.
This is an application by Mr Shaun (Sean) Bryson in which
he complains that he was subject to discrimination on the
grounds of race contrary to s13 Race Relations Act 1976 ('the
Act'). The Respondent is Microtech Computer Services Ltd.
The substance of the complaint is that on 27 July 2000 he
was dismissed from a Training Programme. He presented his
application to the Employment Tribunal by letter that reached
the Tribunal on 6 December 2000.
2.
Section 13 of the Act makes it unlawful for any person providing
facilities for training to discriminate against an individual
by terminating his training. "Discrimination" is
defined by section 1. A complaint by any person that another
person has committed an act of discrimination may be presented
to an Employment Tribunal (s54) An Employment Tribunal shall
not consider a complaint unless it is presented to the Tribunal
before the end of the period of three months beginning when
the act complained of was done (s68). However a Tribunal may
consider any such complaint if, in all circumstances of the
case, it considers that it just and equitable to do so (s68(6))
3.
The issue for the Tribunal is whether it is just and equitable
to extend time to give the Tribunal jurisdiction to hear the
claim.
4.
The Tribunal has unanimously concluded that it is not just
and equitable to extend time in this case for the following
reasons
a.
The Applicant at no time was given incorrect advice in relation
to his claim but he made no reasonable enquiry to obtain the
advice that he needed in relation to the mechanics of making
a claim.
b.
In early August 2000 he knew that the proper forum for his
complaint was the Employment Tribunal.
c.
The Applicant knew or ought to have known that the Job Centre
could not make a claim on his behalf.
d.
The Applicant made no attempt to find out where and how to
make a claim to the Employment Tribunal. The Applicant asked
for assistance from the Commission for Racial Equality under
s66 of the Race Relations Act 1976. But as the Commission
has two months within which to consider an application for
assistance there was always a risk that the time limit for
making his Application would have passed.
e.
The complaint has no reasonable prospect of success. The Applicant
states that he was dismissed from the training course for
not watching a video concerned with equal opportunities and
racism awareness. The Respondent disputes that such was the
reason for the dismissal.
* (A complaint
had been received by the Respondent about the conduct of the
Applicant)
But even if it were the reason, it does not amount to less
favourable treatment on racial grounds.
f.
The Application was made out of time and the Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to hear it.
CHAIRMAN 11/04/01
Decision entered in Register and copies sent to parties on
12th April 2001
* So far
I have still not been told what the complaint was or who made
it. If anyone can find out and tell me in writing, I will
post the details here.
In my view it is the very FIRST thing that MICROTECH should
have done.
IS THIS THE WRITING ON THE WALL ??
|
bravenet.com
