Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Murray v Gilchrist [2002] NIIT 1482_02 (6 December 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/1482_02.html
Cite as: [2002] NIIT 1482_02, [2002] NIIT 1482_2
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
- The applicant was employed by the respondent for a period of approximately 3 years and gave notice of termination of his employment to the respondent in or around 8 April 2002. The applicant said the reason why he did this was that no work was guaranteed by the respondent for the future.
- The applicant was aware that he was not going to obtain anything more than two days summer holidays from his new employer, and his case was that he considered that he was entitled to ten days holiday from his former employer, the respondent.
- The applicant was unable to produce any authority for this proposition, whether by way of written contract giving him this right or otherwise.
- The tribunal was unable to find in favour of the applicant, as this would mean that the respondent was liable to pay holidays to the applicant at a period at which the applicant no longer worked for the respondent. Effectively, the applicant's claim was for a future entitlement to holidays, as this was not a case in which the applicant had taken no holidays at all in the holiday year which ran from 1 January to 31 December in any year. While there may have been an argument concerning the days from 3 to 5 April 2002 inclusive, the tribunal accepts that the applicant did receive six days paid holiday in 2002 as set out in the Appendix, and is thus unable to conclude that the applicant has any entitlement outstanding and untaken.
CASE REF: 1482/02
APPLICANT: Gordon Alexander Murray
RESPONDENT: Gordon Gilchrist
Summary reasons
It is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the applicant's claim in respect of payment of holiday pay is not well-founded and is hereby dismissed.
Appearances:
The applicant appeared in person and represented himself.
The respondent did not appear and did not instruct any representation. Furthermore he did not complete a Notice of Appearance but provided a statement which is appended hereto marked A1, which was deemed by the tribunal to take the place of a Notice of Appearance and considered in reaching the decision of the tribunal.
The tribunal found the following facts:-
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 6 December 2002, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: