WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1979
5
IN MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON. JOHN GRIFFITHS, SAID THAT BY SECTION 9 OF THAT ORDINANCE CLAIMS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION AR IS ING.
+THE REASON FOR THIS WAS TO MAINTAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF SIMPLICITY AND SWIFT JUSTICE. DELAYED CLAIMS TEND TO TAKE LONGER TO INVESTIGATE AND BECOME MORE DIFFICULT TO PROVE, HE SAID.
MR. GRIFFITHS POINTED OUT THAT EXPERIENCE HAD SHOWN THAT THERE WERE A SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH HARDSHIP HAD BEEN CAUSED BY THIS SECTION: IN PARTICULAR CLAIMS INVOLVING ARREARS OF WAGES OR ESPECIALLY COMMISSION, OR DISPUTES ABOUT ANNUAL HOLIDAY PAY, BOTH OF WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO A NATURAL DELAY IN PRESENTATION.
FOLLOWING A STUDY TOUR OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARRANGED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION IN 1978, THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE TRIBUNAL RECOMMENDED THAT SECTION 9 BE AMENDED SO AS TO EXTEND THE TIME ALLOWED FOR MAKING CLAIMS, HE SAID.
+THE PURPOSE OF THIS SHORT BILL IS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THAT RECOMMENDATION, ACCORDINGLY IT IS PROPOSED BY CLAUSE 2 OF THE BILL TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR FILING CLAIMS FROM SIX TO 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION, HE ADDED.
MR. GRIFFITHS NOTED THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO FORECAST EXACTLY HOW MANY EXTRA CLAIMS WOULD RESULT BECAUSE THERE WERE NO COMPLETE RECORDS IN EXISTENCE OF OUT-OF-TIME CLAIMS.
ON PRESENT INDICATIONS, HE EXPLAINED, IT WAS NOT THOUGHT THAT THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL CASES WOULD BE LARGE NOR THAT THE IR NUMBER WOULD MATERIALLY AFFECT THE EFFICIENCY OF THE TRIBUNAL.
+
+TO GUARD AGAINST THIS DANGER. IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER AND TYPE OF CLAIMS WILL BE MONITORED HENCEFORTH SO THAT THE RESULTS OF THIS AMENDMENT CAN BE REVIEWED IN A YEAR'S TIME,+ MR. GRIFFITHS SAID.
HOWEVER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EMPHASISED THAT THE BILL DOES NOT OPEN UP A NEW CATEGORY OF CLAIMS. IT WILL SIMPLY MEAN THAT SOME LABOUR CLAIMS WILL NOW BE HEARD BY IT RATHER THAN BY ANY OTHER COURT.
+PREVIOUSLY SUCH CLAIMS COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT EITHER IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OR THE DISTRICT COURT IF THEY WERE OUT-OF-TIME FOR THIS TRIBUNAL. IT IS CONSIDERED HOWEVER THAT THEY WILL MUCH MORE APPROPRIATELY BE BROUGHT IN THE LABOUR TRIBUNAL WHICH IS THE MOST EXPERT, CONVENIENT AND APPROPRIATE FORM, HE SAID.
MR. GRIFFITHS SAID IT WAS ONLY PROPER AND FAIR THAT A PERSON WHOSE CLAIM WAS ALREADY BARRED BY AN EXISTING LIMITATION PERIOD WAS NOT SUDDENLY GIVEN A SECOND CHANCE TO BRING HIS CLAIM BY REASON OF THE EXTENDED TIME LIMIT PROPOSED BY THIS AMENDMENT.
+FOR THIS REASON CLAUSE 3 OF THE BILL PROVIDES THAT THE EXTENDED TIME LIMIT SHALL NOT APPLY FOR CLAIMS WHICH ARE ALREADY OUT-OF-TIME WHEN THE AMENDMENT TAKES EFFECT, UNLESS OF COURSE BOTH PARTIES AGREE TO THE CLAIM BEING HEARD, HE CONCLUDED.
16 ....