Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Dekoninck v Café En-Seine Ltd [2002] NIIT 2008_01 (26 February 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/2008_01.html
Cite as: [2002] NIIT 2008_01, [2002] NIIT 2008_1

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2008/01

APPLICANT: Eric Dekoninck

RESPONDENT: Café En-Seine Limited

Trading as Opus One

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant was unfairly dismissed and is entitled to compensation of £9,633.00. Further it is ordered that the correct names of the parties are as stated above.

Appearances:

The applicant was represented by Mr M Potter, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Brian Kelly, Solicitor.

The respondent was represented by Mr M Wolff, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Edwards and Company, Solicitors.

The tribunal has determined to provide reasons for its decision in extended form as it considered that reasons in summary form would not sufficiently explain the grounds for its decision.

Extended Reasons.

This is a complaint by the applicant that on 9^th February 2001 the respondent dismissed him without notice from his employment as Executive Chef of the respondent's restaurant known as Opus One and that the dismissal was unfair in all the circumstances. The respondent alleged that the applicant was dismissed for misconduct. The respondent contended that that misconduct was a reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the applicant held as required by Article 130 (1)(b) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances.

The issue in this case is whether the dismissal of the applicant was for a substantial reason as defined within Article 130 (1)(b) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. If so, was the dismissal fair, in particular, whether in the circumstances the respondent acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating the incident of misconduct as a sufficient reason for dismissing the applicant. This must be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.

The tribunal in reaching its decision considered the originating application, the Notice of Appearance by the respondent and the documentation furnished to the tribunal by the parties.

The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Declan James Walsh (General Manager of Opus One in February 2001), Mr Jonathon Kerr (Administrator for Café En-Seine Limited), the applicant, Mr Frank Cannet and Mr Ian Boersma (former employees at Opus One).

The Tribunal saw the following documents: - Personnel file for the applicant including letter of 5 June 1998 re loan of monies to applicant by the respondent, final written warning dated 28 December 2000, interview notes relevant to the disciplinary proceedings in December 2000, unsigned and partially completed copy of a statement of main terms and conditions of employment and a document titled Disciplinary rules and procedure; financial details of Opus One from 1998 to February 2001, copy correspondence dated 12 February 2001 and 28 February 2001, bundle of copies of reviews from various newspapers regarding Opus One, wages details of the applicant, since dismissal, from Key Staff Recruitment and Malone Golf Club.

From the evidence presented the tribunal found the following relevant facts and came to the following conclusions:-

Eric Dekoninck was born on the 20 of February 1963. He recommenced employment with the respondent in October 1998 as Executive chef, having had his employment terminated in June 1998 as a result of the closure of the restaurant to allow major refurbishment of the premises. Accordingly the applicant had over two year's continuous employment with the respondent. His average weekly wage was agreed at £550.00 gross, £400.00 nett.

The respondent is a company who employs staff in other associated companies in the restaurant trade. Some of the respondent's employees such as Jonathon Kerr carry out tasks for other associated companies. At the time of the applicant's dismissal there were at least 18 people employed by the respondent at the restaurant Opus One.

The respondent failed to ensure that the applicant signed for and had been provided with a fully completed written statement of terms and conditions by Café En-Seine Limited as required by the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Employee information regarding the Rules and Disciplinary Procedures were attached to the written statement of terms and conditions of employment.

The tribunal accepted the evidence of the applicant that the standard of cuisine at Opus One was generally of a fairly high standard. In December 2000 the applicant was disciplined for an incident that occurred on Christmas Eve. The misconduct involved drinking on the premises and leaving the premises early when rostered for duty having been instructed to keep the kitchens open and available for business. As a result the applicant received a final written warning dated 28 December 2000 which stated that "a repetition of such conduct will result in your immediate dismissal. This warning will remain in your contract for a period of twelve months". It made no mention of a right to appeal. Further Mr Walsh admitted that it had been prepared prior to the disciplinary hearing.

The tribunal was satisfied that there were a number of meetings after the arrival of Mr Walsh as general manager involving the applicant, Jonathon Kerr and Frank Cannet regarding the necessity to keep overheads and staff levels within a budget.

Staffing levels in the kitchen had reduced between October 1998 to February 2001. Although differing figures were provided in evidence by the respondent's witnesses the tribunal was satisfied that by February 2001 the Kitchen staff responsible for providing meals consisted of 7 chefs of various levels and three kitchen porters, one of whom had increasingly been used for food preparation duties. This was substantially smaller than the number employed when the restaurant first opened. Equally the staff employed were restricted by budgetary demands as to the number of hours that could be worked. The rota had to accommodate the required number of staff within the budget available.

On the 2 February 2001 the respondent had a block booking for a function involving 120 covers. The applicant was aware of the function, as was Frank Cannet, his second chef, who actually prepared the kitchen-staffing rota on a weekly basis. There was conflicting evidence between the witnesses as to whether Declan Walsh or Jonathon Kerr had knowledge of Mr Cannet's role in settling the kitchen staffing rota. In light of Mr Walsh's evidence on cross- examination and the contradictory evidence he provided on this issue the tribunal were satisfied that he was aware that Mr Cannet actually prepared the rota.

It was clear from the evidence that Mr Walsh and the applicant did not get on. Having heard the witnesses the tribunal were satisfied that Mr Walsh did not find the applicant sufficiently deferential to him in his position as general manager. Mr Walsh gave evidence that after the issue of the final written warning there were ongoing issues concerning the applicant's unsatisfactory attitude to customers and consistency of cuisine. However the respondent was unable to provide any evidence of documenting any such incidents. Mr Walsh could provide no satisfactory reason as to why he had no notes retained of the alleged monitoring of the applicant's performance in 2001. On balance the tribunal formed the view that if there were any such incidents they played no part in the disciplining of the applicant in February 2001. The disciplinary action in February 2001 was solely as a result of the events of the 2 February 2001.

There is no dispute between the witnesses that the restaurant was understaffed in the kitchen on the 2 February 2001. There was conflicting evidence as to the number of staff rostered and in particular whether there was a kitchen porter rostered who failed to turn up for duty. It was not in dispute that the decision to allow one chef, namely a Jean Paul Tomassini, the night off for his birthday raised at the very least a risk of inadequate staff to deal with the number of customers on the evening of the 2 February 2001. The applicant knew on the morning of the 2 February that Mr Tomassini had been given the night off. The tribunal was satisfied that no action was taken by the applicant to call Mr Tomassini into work. The applicant acknowledged in his evidence that as Executive chef it was his responsibility to oversee all aspects of life in the kitchen. The tribunal concluded that as executive chef the applicant had to bear responsibility for the performance of the kitchen.

There was evidence given, which was unchallenged by the respondent, that as well as the kitchen being understaffed on the 2 February, there was a problem with the computerised till failing to record accurately the orders of customers. There were a number of complaints received by customers that night as well as an alleged complaint by the organisers of the block booking. However Mr Walsh kept no note of the details of the complaint.

A disciplinary hearing was held on the 9 February 2001 with the applicant involving Mr Walsh and Mr Kerr. No prior investigatory hearing had been held regarding the totality of events that occurred on the 2 February. No notice was given to the applicant as to the nature of the hearing and it's possible outcome. The tribunal did not accept the evidence of Mr Walsh or Mr Kerr that they were familiar with the respondent's disciplinary procedure. They failed to comply with the procedure in any form at all.

The disciplinary procedure stated that its purpose was to make employees aware of the Company's policy in relation to disciplinary matters and to "give employees the opportunity to improve their behaviour / performance". The general principles include that "no disciplinary action shall be taken until there has been a full investigation into any alleged incident. At each stage of this procedure you shall have the right to a fair hearing with the opportunity to state your case and to be accompanied by a fellow employee if desired. Warnings are not generally transferable unless the number of warnings in respect of different types of misconduct justifies a final general warning irrespective of the offence. In the event of a breach of company rules you will be interviewed at all Stages by your manager and given the opportunity to state your case."

Regarding major misconduct and gross misconduct the procedure stated that "If an offence which falls within the major misconduct category is committed and management is satisfied that it has occurred the disciplinary procedure will be invoked at stage 3 (i.e. you will receive a final written warning which will contain clear notice that a repeat of the offence within 12 months will result in dismissal). If you have committed an offence which is regarded as gross misconduct … you will be dismissed summarily i.e. without notice and without wages in lieu of notice.

Under the heading Disciplinary Rules the procedure states "The following list shows examples of the types of rules/offences which the company has categorised for each level of misconduct. None of the examples provided for major or gross misconduct would cover the situation of leaving the kitchen understaffed. It was notable that the respondent witnesses did not refer the tribunal to any specific example from the disciplinary procedure, as covering the decision to dismiss the applicant without notice.

The applicant was not advised of his right to be accompanied until the meeting had commenced despite the alleged advice that both Mr Walsh and Mr Kerr asserted they received from the respondent's solicitors. No note was kept or taken of the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal is satisfied that shortly after the hearing commenced the applicant was advised that he was to be dismissed. Having heard all the witnesses the tribunal concluded that the outcome of the hearing had been predetermined prior to the hearing.

The applicant did not appeal the decision to dismiss him. The applicant was not informed of his right to appeal at the end of the disciplinary hearing. The respondent did not issue a letter to the applicant confirming the dismissal and advising of the applicant's right to appeal.

Since the dismissal the applicant had a short period of work through an employment agency during the week ending the 26 February 2001. His gross earning for that week was £143.10 equating to nett pay of £127.06. The applicant commenced work with the Malone Golf Club on the 15 March 2001. He continues to be employed at Malone Golf Club and has not sought alternative employment since March 2001. He is now employed as a chef on an average basic weekly salary agreed at £250.00 nett. This has been preferable to him for it's location to his family home.

Oral submissions were made on behalf of both parties. The respondent conceded the dismissal of the applicant but made the case that the dismissal was warranted as the applicant's conduct on the 2 February amounted to major misconduct and in the context of the final written warning issued in December 2000 he had to be dismissed. It was submitted that in a situation where the applicant has admitted his fault there was no need for further investigation. The tribunal should not accept the applicant's case regarding the perceived procedural irregularities in the disciplinary process. The applicant did not make the case either at the disciplinary hearing or in his pleadings that he was not the person responsible for allowing Mr Tomassini the night of the 2 February off. It was clearly reasonable and appropriate to dismiss without notice in all the circumstances.

Alternatively the respondent contended that the conduct of the applicant contributed to his dismissal in the region of 25 to 50%. On damages the facts of the Johnson v Unisys decision are not relevant to this case, as there is no evidence of damage to reputation. Further the applicant having found employment in a job paying substantially less took no action to apply for any better paid jobs.

It was contended on behalf of the applicant that this dismissal was unfair as Mr Walsh simply had difficulties with the applicant. Nothing that happened after the final written warning was issued in December 2000 merited disciplinary action of any kind. In particular there was no repeat of the misconduct that occurred in December 2000. Even if Mr Walsh reasonably believed the applicant responsible for giving the night off to Mr Tomassini this was not conduct of the "same or similar nature". The tribunal has to bear in mind British Home Stores v Burchell (1980) ICR 303. The decision to dismiss the applicant was made without any reasonable investigation. Further the circumstances that ought to have been known to the respondents witnesses is also relevant – St Anne's Mill v O'Brien. The respondent failed to follow their own procedure. It is relevant that the applicant was summarily dismissed which the respondent's own procedure provides will occur where there has been gross misconduct. No reasonable employer could come to that conclusion. Even if the applicant's actions were termed misconduct it was unreasonable for any employer to dismiss for those actions. It was submitted this was a typical case for the compensatory award to include an award for damage to reputation based on Johnson v Unisys Ltd (2001) IRLR 279. The Applicant has only a duty to do all that is reasonable to mitigate his loss and should receive compensation for the full loss on the earning differential between his current employment and that with the respondent. The burden is on the respondent to prove that the applicant has not mitigated his loss.

The tribunal has had regard to the provisions of Article 130 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. In determining whether or not a dismissal is fair the onus is on the respondent to prove on a balance of probabilities:-

(i) The reason for the dismissal of the applicant, and

(ii) that it is either a reason falling within Article 130 (2) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held.

Article 130 (2) gives four specific substantial reasons of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee. In this case the respondent admitted that there was a dismissal. Although they stated no reason on the Notice of Appearance lodged with the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal they asserted at the commencement of the hearing that the reason for the dismissal was the applicant's misconduct and poor performance in the months following the issue of a final written warning in December 2000 culminating in an incident on the evening of the 2 February 2001 when the applicant allowed the kitchen to be understaffed. The respondent contended to the tribunal that it was a reason falling within Section 130 (2)(b) of the 1996 Order namely a reason relating to the conduct of the applicant

The tribunal is mindful of the wording of Article 130 (1) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. It is the opinion of this tribunal that the respondent has not proved that the reason for the dismissal of the applicant was the applicant's misconduct in the months following the issue of a final written warning in December 2000. The tribunal concluded after hearing all the evidence that the reason the applicant was disciplined in February 2001 was because of the events of the 2 February 2001.

British Home Stores v Burchell (1980) ICR 303 has established a three fold test that must be satisfied if dismissal of the applicant, by the respondent, for a reason relating to conduct is to be fair. The respondent must show that he had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after reasonable investigation that the applicants' behaviour justifies dismissal.

Paragraph 14 of the Code of Practice on Disciplinary Practice and Procedures in Employment provides that in determining the disciplinary penalty, so far as possible account should be taken of the employee's record and other factors, including penalties imposed on employees for similar offences in the past. The contractual procedure of the respondent stated that where a final written warning had issued "a repeat of the offence within 12 months will result in dismissal". It is only where acts of gross misconduct are concerned does the procedure state that an employee "will be dismissed summarily".

Simply specifying that the breach of certain rules will be visited by instant dismissal is not sufficient to satisfy the relevant statutory provision. The final written warning received by the applicant only referred to "repetition of such conduct will result in your immediate dismissal". The conduct in December 2000 had involved "consuming intoxicants during working hours and insubordination" both of which are clearly classified as major misconduct under the respondent's procedure. The tribunal concluded that at the very least it could not be said that the events of the 2 February could be described as the "same conduct" as that which occurred in December 2000.

It is clear that at some time during the chaos that occurred in the respondent's premises on the 2 February 2001 the applicant indicated to Mr Walsh the manager that one of the kitchen staff had been given the night off. Even where misconduct is admitted by an employee the requirement of reasonableness in Article 130 (4) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 relates not only to the outcome in terms of the penalty imposed by the employer but also to the process by which the employer arrived at that decision. Accordingly this tribunal had to ask itself whether dismissal fell within the "band of reasonable responses" having applied that test to the circumstances of this case and the procedure used by the respondent in reaching the decision to dismiss - Whitbread plc v Hall (2001) IRLR 275.

In carrying out a reasonable investigation, the respondent is required to investigate the complaint of misconduct fully and fairly. Paragraph 5 of the Code of Practice issued by the Labour Relations Agency advises of the importance that procedural arrangements be used consistently and fairly. Paragraph 10 (vii) advises that individuals should be informed of the complaint against them and given an opportunity to state their case directly to those considering disciplinary action before decisions are reached. McLaren v National Coal Board [1988] IRLR 215 emphasises the importance of ensuring that employees are given a proper hearing before dismissal occurs. A dismissal can still be unfair under the statute, even though justified at common law, if in all the circumstances the employer has acted unreasonably for example refusing to consider extenuating or mitigating circumstances.

In this regard, the tribunal considered the actions of the respondent and in particular the failure of the respondent to carry out any investigation after the night of the 2 February but to immediately move to a disciplinary hearing against the applicant. In addition there is the failure to give any notice to the applicant of the matters to be dealt with at the disciplinary hearing, the short notice of the disciplinary hearing and the failure to provide to the applicant details of all information being taken under consideration at the disciplinary hearing. The respondent company is large enough to be able to provide fairer disciplinary procedures.

The tribunal had to determine whether the respondent had established on a balance of probabilities the reason for dismissal and that it was a reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position that employee held. Both Mr Walsh and Mr Kerr failed to provide a satisfactory account of the disciplinary hearing and the reason for the absence of any record of the proceedings. The tribunal concluded that the absence of any such notes was partly because they had predetermined to dismiss the applicant prior to the disciplinary hearing.

A breach of the Code of Practice on Disciplinary Rules and Procedure does not render a dismissal automatically unfair but is a matter to be taken into consideration by the tribunal. The respondent failed to apply the disciplinary procedure set out in their own statement of terms and conditions provided in accordance with the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The respondent failed to apply any procedural safeguard in the circumstances of this case, Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1997] IRLR 503. The whole procedure followed by the respondent, in particular the involvement of Mr Walsh as both the accuser and judge of the applicant's conduct and the failure to provide the applicant with a proper and adequate opportunity to challenge information that was to play a part in the decision of the disciplinary panel tainted the decision with an inherent lack of equity.

Accordingly, in all the circumstances of this application, given the size and administrative resources of the respondent, this tribunal considers that the respondent did not act reasonably in treating this conduct as a sufficient reason for dismissing the applicant, taking into account the equity and the substantial merits of the case - Gilham and others v Kent County Council (No.2) [1985] IRLR 18.

The applicant did not seek a remedy under Article 147 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and accordingly compensation has been calculated in accordance with Articles 152 to 158 of that Order. We have had regard to the evidence. The conduct of the applicant was mildly blameworthy in that he failed to take any action on the 2 February when he knew that there was a risk of understaffing in light of the function booked for that evening. Equally he did not at any stage advise the respondent that another member of his staff had settled the rota for the evening. However the tribunal considered it relevant that there was no investigation hearing held, after the evening of the 2 February, which would have provided an opportunity to make clear the reasons for the chaos that occurred on that date. While the applicant made no appeal against the decision to dismiss we considered it relevant that the respondent failed to advise him of the right to appeal at the disciplinary hearing. Further as the respondent failed to issue a letter to the applicant confirming his dismissal he was not advised of his right to appeal, within the relevant period, by the respondent. We considered it of note that even the final written warning issued to the applicant in December 2000 made no reference to a right of appeal.

The tribunal considered that we first had to determine whether we thought it just and equitable to reduce the basic award, taking into account the conduct of the applicant. The respondent had denied the applicant a number of important rights; in particular the opportunity to know fully or properly the information which the respondent intended to rely on in making its decision. However the tribunal was not satisfied that the unfair dismissal itself was caused or contributed to by the conduct of the applicant - Nelson v BBC (No 2) 1979 IRLR 346. In this case the misconduct which led to the decision to dismiss was a failure to ensure adequate staff for the kitchen on the 2 February 2001. The tribunal was not satisfied that there was a causal link between the actions of the employee and the dismissal - Hollier v Plysu Ltd 1983 IRLR 260. The right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to state your case is a very important right. In all the circumstances, outlined above, we did not consider it just and equitable to make a reduction to the basic award.

The applicant did not receive income support or jobseekers allowance. Accordingly the Employment (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations (NI) 1996 will not apply.

Basic Award

The effective date of termination was 9 February 2001. The applicant was aged 39 at the time of his dismissal. He had 2 year's service with the respondent, from October 1998 until 9 February 2001. The applicant is entitled to one weeks gross pay (subject to the statutory maximum of £230 gross per week) for each compete year of service in which he was between the age of 22 and 41.

The applicant's basic award is therefore calculated as follows

Two weeks @ £230 .00

£460.00

The tribunal considered the wording of Article 157(1) and (6) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. In adjudging whether to reduce the compensatory award, we first considered whether the applicants conduct contributed in part to his dismissal. The tribunal considered that the applicants conduct had not contributed to his dismissal. The tribunal was of the view that the applicant could not have known that his conduct would or might lead to his dismissal. The applicant clearly had not committed a repetition of similar conduct to that which led to the final written warning in December 2000.

In considering what was just and equitable, we had regard to our findings of fact and also that no deduction had been made to the basic award. This accords with the judgement of Holland J in Charles Robertson (Developments) Ltd v White [1995] ICR at page 357. The tribunal was required to reduce the compensatory award by such proportion as we considered

"just and equitable, in all the circumstances having regard to the loss sustained in consequence of the dismissal in so far as that loss is attributable to action taken by the employer" [Article 157 (1) of the 1996 Order].

The tribunal took cognisance of Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd (1987) IRLR 503. "Consideration of what might have happened had the (disciplinary) procedure been fair is relevant to the assessment of any compensation for the applicant." The onus is on the respondent to adduce evidence that the dismissal would have occurred in any event had a fair procedure been followed. The respondent's representative made no submission to the tribunal as to what it should conclude as to the chance of dismissal even if procedural failures had not taken place. The tribunal concluded that on the balance of probabilities had the applicant been fairly disciplined on the relevant matter, the understaffing of the kitchen on the night of the 2 February 2001, there would have been no dismissal. Accordingly the tribunal did not consider that dismissal would have occurred had a fair procedure been followed.

It appeared to the tribunal that initially the applicant had made reasonable efforts to obtain alternative employment. The tribunal accepted that it was reasonable for the applicant to accept employment at a substantially lower level of pay given his dismissal. The applicant gained employment after one month with Malone Golf Club. His basic weekly income from this employment is approximately £150 less, after tax, than his salary with the respondent. The tribunal considered it reasonable to expect that the applicant could not immediately gain employment at the same level of wages. However at some stage the applicant took a definite decision not to seek similar employment on similar wages as it suited his family situation and career to remain with the Malone Golf Club. The applicant had an expectation of the future development of the restaurant facility by the Club. Once the applicant took that decision the tribunal concluded that it had to determine when did the applicant's loss as a result of the actions of the respondent cease. The tribunal considered it just and equitable in these circumstances to allow the applicant one years loss of salary from the date of dismissal to the 9 February 2002.

The tribunal was referred to the recent case of Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] IRLR 288 regarding damages for loss of reputation. While it is clear from the judgement of Lord Hoffman that the compensatory award clearly covers financial loss flowing from the manner of the dismissal no guidance is given as to what might be an appropriate case for his tentative suggestion that a compensatory award include compensation for distress, humiliation, damage to reputation in the community or to family life. In particular the tribunal noted the dictum of Lord Hoffman in Johnson v Unisys Ltd that

"the emphasis is upon the tribunal awarding such compensation as it thinks "just and equitable". So I see no reason why in an appropriate case it should not include compensation for distress, humiliation, damage to reputation in the community or to family life".

While the applicant asserted that his reputation in the community was damaged he gave no evidence as to the nature of that damage or the extent. While the tribunal found it reasonable to believe that in the restaurant trade the dismissal of the applicant might become known it was likely that the actions of the other kitchen staff who left their employment shortly after the applicant's dismissal would also become known within the trade. It is difficult to evaluate the extent of the damage or injury in the absence of any specific evidence. It appeared to this tribunal that applicants should at least try to provide evidence of such damage when they wish to assert that compensation should be awarded for such damage. Accordingly on the basis of the evidence before us the tribunal did not consider this a case where it would be just and equitable for the compensatory award to include an award for damage to reputation. As Lord Hoffman said in Johnson v Unisys Ltd

"Parliament adopted the practical solution of giving the tribunal a very broad jurisdiction to award what they considered just and equitable but subject to a limit on the amount"

In all the circumstances the tribunal concluded that it was just and equitable to assess compensation as follows:-

Compensatory Award

Loss of earnings from 9 February 2001 to 9 February 2002

52 weeks @ £400 - £20,800

less salary received

w/e 26 February 2001 – £127.06

Earnings Malone Golf Club

15 March 2001 to 9 February 2002

47 weeks @ £250.00 - £11,750

£8,923

Loss of statutory industrial rights £250

£9,173.00

Monetary Award Grand Total £9,633.00

This decision is a relevant decision under the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990.

____________________________________

Date and place of hearing: 26 February 2002, 15 March 2002, 19 March 2002

and 6 June 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: