Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 


Gamble v Montgomery (t/a Simply Pizza) (Art. 40 Pay Statement) [2002] NIIT 3275_01 (3 September 2002)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 3275/01

APPLICANT: Jordan Gamble

RESPONDENT: Stephen Montgomery trading as Simply Pizza

DECISION

The tribunal declares that the respondent failed to give the applicant any pay statement in accordance with Article 40 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Tribunal finds that the sum of £50.00 is due to the applicant in respect of monies due under his contract of employment with the respondent. The Tribunal orders the respondent to pay that amount to the applicant.

Appearances:

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared on his own behalf.

The respondent failed to appear but has entered a Notice of Appearance.

Summary Reasons

The applicant alleged that the respondent had failed to provide him with a written statement of main terms and conditions in accordance with Article 36 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, but indicated at hearing that he did not want to pursue that aspect of his complaint. The applicant also alleged that the respondent had failed to provide him with an itemised pay statement in accordance with Article 40 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and failed to pay him wages due and owing for work done in accordance with his contract of employment.

After considering the whole of the evidence, both oral and documentary we found the following facts:

1. The respondent employed the applicant as a pizza maker at his business premises known as Simply Pizza at 71 Irish quarter West, Carrickfergus County Antrim. He was employed from 23 March 2001 until the respondent terminated his employment on the 13 July 2001.
2. The applicant had no contractual rate of pay agreed but instead a fixed sum was agreed for the set number of working hours. The applicant was aged 16 at the time and therefore not covered by the minimum wage regulations. The applicant's normal agreed days of work prior to his dismissal was every Saturday 5 p.m. to midnight and alternate Fridays 5pm to 2 a.m.
3. The applicant never received an itemised pay statement in his four months of employment but received £50 for every 23-hour period worked. The respondent never agreed with the applicant a specific hourly contractual rate of pay. The respondent did agree with the applicant that he was entitled as gross pay for the weekends worked the sum of £50.00.
4. The applicant has received no payment from the respondent for work done in the two weekends ending the 13 July 2000.
5. The applicant had no other source of employment. The respondent was not required to make any payments to the Inland Revenue in respect of income tax or National Insurance for or on behalf of the applicant given the level of pay received from the respondent. Accordingly the tribunal does not make any order in accordance with Article 44(4) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
6. The essential question for this tribunal was to establish what sum was due to the applicant under or as a result of his contract of employment with the respondent. The tribunal is satisfied that the applicant's claim satisfied the requirements of Article 3 of the Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 and Article 5 (2)(b) of the Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The applicant is an employee within the terms of Article 2 of the Industrial Tribunal (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Accordingly the applicant is entitled to receive from the respondent the sum of £50.00.
7. This decision is a relevant decision under the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990.

____________________________________

Date and place of hearing: 3 September 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: