THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	1063/08

CLAIMANT:			Daniel Murray

RESPONDENTS		1.  Belfast Education & Library Board
				2.  Miss Jill Dowie

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The claimant has withdrawn his application to amend his claim form to include a complaint of Public Interest Disclosure.  The application to amend is dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone):		Mr P Kinney

Appearances:
The claimant appeared and represented himself.
The respondents were represented by Mr Law, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by The Education & Library Boards Legal Service.

1.	This hearing was arranged further to the adjournment of an issue at an earlier Pre Hearing Review on 14 January 2009.  The issue which was adjourned was whether the claimant’s claim should be amended to include a claim for public interest disclosure.  As recorded in the decision of the earlier Pre Hearing Review, it appeared that the claimant was in time to make a new claim for public interest disclosure.

2.	Subsequent to that hearing the claimant did lodge a further claim (reference 1896/09) on 9 March 2009.

3.	The claimant has today confirmed that included in the newly presented claim is his claim for public interest disclosure.  Claim reference 1896/09 includes all the amendments sought in relation to the earlier claim reference 1063/08.  In particular Mr Murray clarified that his claim for public interest disclosure is made in relation to the letter the claimant wrote to Mr David Cargo of the respondents on 10 July 2008 and the events which subsequently transpired.  Mr Murray confirmed that there was nothing in his application for an amendment to his existing claim which was not contained in his new claim reference 1896/09.

4.	Mr Law confirmed that the respondents accepted that a new claim had been made.  He also confirmed it was the respondents understanding that the claim for public interest disclosure in the new claim related to the claimant’s letter to Mr Cargo of July 2008 and any alleged following events.  The only issue that Mr Law raised in relation to the new claim was whether or not the claimant had complied with the grievance procedure.  However, in the context of this claim, the respondents’ view was this point was better dealt with at the substantive hearing.  Mr Murray agreed.  

5.	Mr Murray then withdrew his application to amend claim reference 1063/08 and I therefore dismiss his application to amend that claim.  The claim is now contained within the newly lodged claim reference 1896/09.  

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:    24 April 2009, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: