Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 


Harvey v Ulster Weavers Apparel Ltd (Breach of Contract) [2002] NIIT 1073_02 (30 October 2002)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 1073/02

APPLICANT: Helene Harvey

RESPONDENT: Ulster Weavers Apparel Limited

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the applicant was not contractually entitled to enhanced redundancy terms, and accordingly her claim for breach of contract is dismissed.

Appearances:

The applicant appeared and was unrepresented.

The respondent was represented by Ms Z McKane.

SUMMARY REASONS

1. The applicant was made redundant following the respondent's relocation from Montgomery Road in Belfast, to Ballievy in Banbridge.
2. She received a statutory redundancy payment on termination of her employment. She alleged that she was entitled to an ex-gratia amount of one week's wages for each year of her employment, in addition to the statutory amount payable. She contended that by custom and practice the respondent had always paid redundant employees this ex-gratia amount, and so it was an implied term of her contract that she should receive this additional amount.
3. The respondent refuted this contention. Ms McKane stated that from the records available to her various amounts had been paid to various people in the event of redundancy, ranging from statutory redundancy only, to statutory redundancy plus an additional ex-gratia amount. Neither the company handbook nor the contract of employment makes any mention of the method used to calculate redundancy.
4. Since Ms McKane's employment with the respondent, which commenced in February 2000, seven people have been made redundant, and all received statutory redundancy only, apart from two people who negotiated a better package for specific reasons. The respondent acquired the 'Moygashel' business and employees from 'Moygashel' who were made redundant were dealt with separately.
5. Those employees who did not leave the respondent until the actual date of relocation to Ballievy, all received enhanced terms. The tribunal accepts that the applicant and indeed all employees were aware that if they left the respondent prior to the date of relocation (as was the case of the applicant) they would receive only a statutory redundancy payment.
6. The applicant relied on the fact that in her capacity as cashier with the respondent, she had written cheques for redundancy which she believed contained ex-gratia payments. However, she was never given a breakdown of those amounts, and therefore could not be certain that ex-gratia amounts were paid in all cases. She relied on hearsay within the company, and the general belief of staff as to amounts payable on redundancy.
7. Having heard both the applicant and Ms McKane on behalf of the respondent, the tribunal is not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that ex-gratia amounts were paid in all cases prior to the applicant's redundancy. The tribunal is not therefore satisfied that the enhanced terms had become contractual by custom and practice.
8. Accordingly, the tribunal is not satisifed that the respondent breached the applicant's contract of employment in failing to pay her enhanced terms and the claim is therefore dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 30 October 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: