Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 404 Norfolk and Suffolk IFE President Eddie Meelan
Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales then check out “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” at
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
Section 7 Attachment to Main Body of IT3 (Doc 402)
1. The Applicant claims under Section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) that he has suffered a detriment for a health and safety reason namely being investigated for a disciplinary offence under the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985 (the Regulations) for disobedience to Orders. The order was a requirement to seek permission before taking time off for health and safety duties.
2. The respondent resists the application on a number of grounds.
2.1. The applicant is not recognized by the Respondent as a health and safety representative.
2.2. Attending a trade union meeting even if an agenda item dealt with health and safety is not a ground set out in Section 44 (1) (a) – (e). The link to health and safety is tenuous in the extreme.
2.3. The applicant’s claim is an abuse of process: he has already withdrawn an action under Section 44 ERA 1996 (1501132) (98) following a decision taken by the Chairman sitting alone on 11 November 1998 that the claim stood no reasonable prospect of success.
3. The respondent requests that a pre-hearing review be held under
Rule & of the Industrial Tribunals Regulations 1993.
Signed
K Stevens 5th January 1999
http://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
Section 7 Attachment to Main Body of IT3 (Doc 402)
1. The Applicant claims under Section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) that he has suffered a detriment for a health and safety reason namely being investigated for a disciplinary offence under the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985 (the Regulations) for disobedience to Orders. The order was a requirement to seek permission before taking time off for health and safety duties.
2. The respondent resists the application on a number of grounds.
2.1. The applicant is not recognized by the Respondent as a health and safety representative.
2.2. Attending a trade union meeting even if an agenda item dealt with health and safety is not a ground set out in Section 44 (1) (a) – (e). The link to health and safety is tenuous in the extreme.
2.3. The applicant’s claim is an abuse of process: he has already withdrawn an action under Section 44 ERA 1996 (1501132) (98) following a decision taken by the Chairman sitting alone on 11 November 1998 that the claim stood no reasonable prospect of success.
3. The respondent requests that a pre-hearing review be held under
Rule & of the Industrial Tribunals Regulations 1993.
Signed
K Stevens 5th January 1999
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home