An employment judge who delayed providing written reasons in a case for six months has been issued with formal advice for misconduct.
Employment judge Gary Denis Tobin “did not exercise sufficient diligence and care in the discharge of his duties”, an investigation found.
According to a statement from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), following a hearing in the employment tribunal, a party to a case complained that Tobin had “still not” provided written reasons “despite them having requested these around five months prior”.
Tribunal rulings
Latest employment tribunal news
Police sergeant’s ‘scattergun’ allegations dismissed by tribunal
Nurse left out of tea round wins constructive dismissal claim
The complainant received the written reasons more than six months after requesting them.
Judge Tobin accepted he had delayed providing the written reasons, but in mitigation, he explained he had given a full oral judgment during the hearing and informed the parties that, because of work pressures, written reasons were likely to take some time if requested. He said he had read his judgment slowly to allow the parties to take notes.
A busy workload and the prioritising of other work, such as reserved judgments were also cited by the judge.
Tobin had apologised to the complainant for the delay and apologised again in his representations.
However, an investigation found Tobin’s six-month delay in providing written reasons amounted to misconduct. The employment judge had “failed to keep the parties updated as to the delay and when the written reasons for his decision could be expected”.
The investigation found Tobin did not approach his regional employment judge “soon enough” to ask for additional time to produce the reasons and “therefore did not exercise sufficient diligence and care in the discharge of his duties”.
Judge Tobin therefore did not exercise sufficient diligence and care in the discharge of his duties, found the nominated judge and senior president of tribunals.
But in recommending formal advice, the nominated judge observed that the misconduct was at the lowest level of seriousness, and that the complaint did not call Judge Tobin’s integrity into question. It was agreed that the delay had not caused any detriment to the complainant.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more human resources jobs
