Tawake v National Fire Authority [2009] FJET 20; Misc02.2008 (20 January 2009)

IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
AT SUVA

Misc No 2 of 2008

BETWEEN:

SOLOMONI TAWAKE

AND:

NATIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY

Worker: Mr J Raikadroka
NFA: Mr J Koroi

DECISION

By letter dated 15 October 2008 the Mediation Unit forwarded to Mr Solomoni Tawake (the worker) a Notice to attend Mediation (Form ER 2). The first session of mediation was scheduled for 22 October 2008 at Civic House. The Notice to attend Mediation was addressed to both the worker and to the National Fire Authority (the Employer).

It would appear that the Employer then wrote to the Ministry of Labour, Industrial Relations and Employment (the Ministry) in relation to the requirement under section 111 (2) of the Employment Relations Promulgation 2007 (the Promulgation) that the worker must submit his grievance to the employer within 6 months from the date on which the action alleged occurred unless the employer consented to extend that period.

Although the Tribunal was not provided with a copy of the Employer's letter dated 3 October 2008 to the Ministry, it would appear that the Employer in raising the time limitation would not consent to any extension of time.

As a result the Permanent Secretary in a letter dated 23 October 2008 informed the Employer that the worker would be advised to make an application pursuant to section 111(3) of the Promulgation for the time to be extended. A cc copy of that letter addressed to the worker served as the advice.

Section 111 (3) of the Promulgation states :

"If consent is not given (by the Employer) under sub section 2, the Tribunal may, upon application extend the period, if it is satisfied that there are good reasons for the delay."

The worker subsequently sent a typed letter dated 10 November 2008 to the Tribunal setting out some of the background information to the grievance. The Tribunal deemed the letter to be an application under section 211 (3) for an extension of time for submitting his grievance to the Employer.

The application was listed for mention on 19 November 2008. On that day the Tribunal directed that the worker provide the Employer with a copy of the letter dated 10 November 2008 (the application) within seven days. The application was listed for hearing on 3 December 2008.

The hearing of the application commenced on 3 December 2008. The worker was represented by counsel and the Employer was represented by its Director Corporate Services who had been authorized in writing to appear. After some initial submissions and preliminary observations, the application was adjourned part heard to 11 December 2008.

The hearing of the application was completed on 11 December 2008. The worker gave evidence in support of his application and the employer did not call any evidence. Both parties made brief oral closing submissions at the conclusion of the evidence.

At the request of the Tribunal the parties again appeared before the Tribunal on 13 January 2009 to enable the Tribunal to hear the parties on a preliminary question concerning the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine the application.

Counsel for the worker informed the Tribunal during the course of these proceedings that the worker wished to withdraw his application. The employer subsequently consented in writing to this course of action.

The application is withdrawn by consent. There was no application in respect of costs.

DATED at Suva this 20th day of January 2009.

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL