Mr J Harkins v G1 Group plc: 4100044/2018
JUDGMENT
OF THE EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENTREASONS
TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) 4100048/2018 Mrs AJ Middleton No appearance and not represented TRIBUNAL and 4100049/2018. Represented 4100045/2018; Respondent Advocate Mr D Hay Claimant 2013. that The by: to 1 1am Mr Briggs advised that he had been unable to obtain instructions from the claimant from whom he had last heard on 24 May 2018. Mr Briggs said Mr Briggs also advised that some of the other claimants had attempted to contact the claimant but they too had been unsuccessful. In the circumstances Mr Briggs said that he was left with was adjourned until 2pm to allow the Tribunal’s clerk to make enquiries. The telephone was switched off. On the Tribunal’s instruction the clerk sent an email to the claimant advising of the developments and asking if he was still The claimant was asked to reply by 2pm. The email also stated that if the claimant failed to respond within the timescales consideration would be given by the Tribunal to striking out his claims on the grounds that they were not The hearing reconvened at 2pm. The clerk confirmed that the claimant was uncontactable by telephone and there had been no response to the email. As the remaining parties were ready to start the hearing the Tribunal decided to On 10 July 201 8 at 10am there was no appearance by or for the claimant at said that he proposed to make an application to dismiss the claimant’s claim allow Mr Briggs to take instructions. When the hearing reconvened around that since then he had been attempting to contact the claimant by telephone no alternative but to withdraw from acting for the claimant and the claimant As the other claimants and the respondent were ready to proceed the hearing but the mobile pursuing his claims and would be attending the hearing the following morning. proceed in the claimant’s absence on the basis that if the claimant attended the hearing the following morning Mr Briggs was willing to share his notes the hearing. He had not contacted the Tribunal’s office or Mr Briggs. Mr Hay 2013. under Rule 47 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment After the hearing started on 9 July 2018 there was a short adjournment Regulations to speak to the claimant by telephone of Procedure) recording the evidence with the claimant. and email but had been unsuccessful. Rules and had been advised of this. (Constitution being actively pursued. clerk endeavoured Tribunals[3]4.[5]6. 5 10 25 15 30 25[9]8. 7. Procedure) Regulations in Schedule decided to dismiss the claimant’s claims under Rule 47 of the Rules contained contact the claimant directly about the reasons for his absence the Tribunal Briggs and the other claimants and having endeavoured Having considered evidence. claimants evidence be relisted and Mrs Swan would be involved in returning to continue her Mr Briggs in a difficult position. If the hearing was adjourned it would need to about the claimant’s dismissal in his absence as it placed the Tribunal and Tribunal did not consider that it was appropriate to hear Mrs Swan’s evidence represented. not given evidence about the claimant’s dismissal as he was not present or Mrs Swan, the dismissing officer about the other claimants’ claims. She had the claimant by email and telephone. The Tribunal had heard evidence from that he was withdrawing from acting on his behalf. The clerk had contacted hearing at some point to give evidence. Mr Briggs had informed the claimant Tribunal considered that the claimant knew that he would need to attend the of hearing and had failed to contact Mr Briggs despite repeated requests. The The Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had been informed of the dates explanation for the claimant’s failure to attend the hearing. stage respondent’s application under Rule 47. The Tribunal had hoped that by this Tribunal’s The hearing continued until lunchtime. The claimant had not contacted the until lunchtime to afford the claimant more time to attend or make contact. Rule 37(1 ) (d) . The Tribunal decided to delay consideration of the application Alternatively, he applied for the claimant’s claims to be struck out in terms of the claimant page 3 at some unknown who had made arrangements office or Mr Briggs. Over lunch the Tribunal 1 to the Employment Mrs Swan was no longer an employee of the respondent. The the information available, having made enquiries of Mr would have 2013. date. It would also inconvenience been Tribunals in touch. to attend the hearing and give (Constitution The Tribunal unsuccessfully considered and Rules of the other had no the to When the hearing reconvened at 2.15pm the parties were informed of the 12 July 2018 16 July 2018 Tribunal’s decision and its reasons. S Maclean