Ward v Calcast Limited & Ors [2005] NIIT 249_03 (23 September 2005)

Ward v Calcast Limited & Ors [2005] NIIT 249_03 (23 September 2005)

The Tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably on grounds of religion or that the delegation of another employee to attend meetings was motivated by religious discrimination. Operational reasons were accepted as the basis for the decisions, and no harassment or victimisation was established.

Citation
[2005] NIIT 249_03
Parties
Claimant: Terence Anthony Ward; Respondent: Calcast Limited; Respondent: Cecil Craig; Respondent: Trevor McGregor; Respondent: Jaci Carson; Respondent: Terry Mulvey
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
23 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Religious Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation, Employment Grievance Procedures
Employment Law Anti Discrimination Law Religious Discrimination Harassment Victimisation Employment Grievance Procedures

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Anthony Ward

Claimant

Calcast Limited

Respondent

Cecil Craig

Respondent

Trevor McGregor

Respondent

Jaci Carson

Respondent

Terry Mulvey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of religious belief in the appointment to attend daily production meetings
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was subjected to harassment following his complaint
  3. 3 Whether the repeated delegation of another employee to attend meetings constituted further religious discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably on grounds of religion or that the delegation of another employee to attend meetings was motivated by religious discrimination. Operational reasons were accepted as the basis for the decisions, and no harassment or victimisation was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed