Hynds v South Eastern Regional CollegeTim McAlister [2017] NIIT 01607_16IT (10 July 2017)

Hynds v South Eastern Regional CollegeTim McAlister [2017] NIIT 01607_16IT (10 July 2017)

The tribunal found that Mr McAlister's actions in arranging and conducting the meeting with the claimant were motivated by the need to prepare his defence in disciplinary proceedings and to maintain confidentiality, not by any protected act of the claimant. The evidence did not support the contention that the claimant was treated less favourably because of a protected act. The claimant was not compelled to participate, and there was no evidence of pressure to alter or retract evidence. The statutory defence was available to the employer. Accordingly, the claim of unlawful victimisation failed.

Citation
[2017] NIIT 01607_16IT
Parties
Claimant: Shane Hynds; First Named Respondent: South Eastern Regional College; Second Named Respondent: Tim McAlister
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
10 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Race Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Employer Liability
Employment Law Equality Law Victimisation Race Discrimination Burden of Proof Employer Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane Hynds

Claimant

South Eastern Regional College

First Named Respondent

Tim McAlister

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unlawfully discriminated against by way of victimisation contrary to Article 4 of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that Mr McAlister's actions in arranging and conducting the meeting with the claimant were motivated by the need to prepare his defence in disciplinary proceedings and to maintain confidentiality, not by any protected act of the claimant. The evidence did not support the contention that the claimant was treated less favourably because of a protected act. The claimant was not compelled to participate, and there was no evidence of pressure to alter or retract evidence. The statutory defence was available to the employer. Accordingly, the claim of unlawful victimisation failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's claim is dismissed without further order.