Discrimination case panel resign

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/northern_ireland_politics/8109656.stm

Version 0 of 1.

A discrimination case against the Alliance party is to be heard again after the tribunal panel stepped down.

The case was taken by Margaret Hawkins, 60, an employee, who alleged age, gender and disability discrimination.

An Alliance party barrister applied for the panel to withdraw on the basis of "apparent bias".

But the tribunal heard the three-strong panel were standing aside because the chairwoman would feel "compromised" by the attendance of one of the witnesses.

Chair Orla Murray said she had already made it clear to the parties her "difficulty" with regard to a doctor giving evidence to the tribunal.

But she said it did not meant that the barrister's application had been successful as it was not necessary for her to rule on it.

Earlier, the Alliance Party barrister had claimed he had been "consistently interrupted" during his cross-examinations of Mrs Hawkins which, he said, was "not consistent with a fair hearing".

The barrister added that during day three of the hearing he was "repeatedly prevented from developing themes in a fashion which was prejudicial."

He said on one occasion it would have been "reasonable" to pursue a line of cross-examination "that the claimant had faked her condition".

And he claimed that he had been "undermined" by the "intervention" of the panel during cross-examination on the issue of sick pay.

Credibility

In relation to a claim for disability living allowance, he said if there was evidence Mrs Hawkins had been guilty of "distortion" over the application, there was an obvious line of cross-examination that she is a "person capable of deceiving an employment tribunal".

He claimed Mrs Hawkins was being "indulged", adding that during one of the hearings, her answers were "evasive and rambling" but that the panel did not ask her to stick to the questions.

"Where the claimant puts forward serious and wounding allegations..... against the character of various people I am entitled to some degree of latitude in cross-examination," he argued.

He later claimed there were "serious questions about the credibility of the claimant and the general reliability of her evidence."

He told Friday's sitting that an observer might wonder if the tribunal was "unduly swayed in its management of the case by the fact that the claimant was disabled physically".

But he also said that it could be concluded that the respondents had been "put under pressure" to make concessions.

'Compromised'

"The underlying principle is that justice be seen to be done," he said. "The tribunal should bear in mind the overlying principle there should be a level playing field."

"The test is not one which involves finding of bias by any member of the tribunal. The test is an objective test based on the principle of justice being seen to be done."

A solicitor for the Equality Commission, which took the case on behalf of Mrs Hawkins, said three hours had been wasted on the application when the respondent's lawyer knew "fully well" that the chairperson would be compromised by the attendance of the medical witness.

Mrs Hawkins alleged that on 30 August 2007, following a staffing review about which she was not consulted, she was informed her job no longer existed, she would have to accept a new position and her salary was to be cut by about £7,000.

The case will resume on another date before a different panel.