THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:    345/12
2461/12
485/13
1621/13

CLAIMANT:	Vivienne Elizabeth Costley

RESPONDENT:	Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland and Others

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

(A)	I granted the claimant leave to amend the relevant claim form so as to include a claim of Sex Discrimination Order (“SDO”) victimisation discrimination in respect of Act (1).

(B)	I granted the claimant leave to amend the relevant claim form so as to include a claim of SDO victimisation discrimination in respect of Act (2).

(C)	I refused the claimant leave to amend the relevant claim form so as to include a claim of SDO victimisation discrimination in respect of Act (4).

(D)	I refused the claimant leave to amend the relevant claim form so as to include a claim of SDO victimisation discrimination in relation to Act (5).

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman  (Sitting alone):	Mr P Buggy

Appearances:

The claimant was self-represented.

The respondents were represented by Ms N Murnaghan, instructed by the Departmental Solicitor's Office.

REASONS

1.	I announced my decision at the end of the hearing.  At the same time, I gave brief oral reasons for that decision.

2.	The relevant employment tribunal claim form is from now on to be deemed to include a claim of SDO victimisation discrimination in relation to Act (1); and the relevant employment tribunal response is from now onwards to be deemed to include a blanket denial of SDO victimisation discrimination in relation to that Act.

3.	From now onwards, the relevant employment tribunal claim form is to be deemed to include a claim of SDO victimisation discrimination in relation to Act (2); and the relevant employment tribunal response form is from now onwards to be deemed to include a blanket denial of SDO victimisation discrimination in relation to that Act.

4.	The claimant did not pursue any application for leave to amend her claim form so as to include a claim of SDO victimisation discrimination in relation to Act (6), the termination of her employment.  In my view, she was being realistic in not pursuing an application for leave to amend in relation to that particular Act.

5.	Act (1) relates to the claimant’s suspension.  Act (2) relates to the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings against the claimant.  Act (4) relates to the claimant’s allegation that the grievance procedures were not properly followed in her case.  Act (5) relates to the claimant’s allegation that she was not allowed to complete a particular assignment in relation to a university course.  Act (6) relates to the termination of the claimant’s employment.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:        21 November 2013, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: