British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >> Scullion v O'Kane Brothers (t/a Compass Windows) (Unfair Dismissal) [2002] NIIT 2875_01 (29 May 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/57.html
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
- These reasons are given in summary form.
- The applicant claimed unfair dismissal. The respondent asserted that the applicant had been dismissed for gross misconduct and sought a preliminary hearing as to whether the applicant had the requisite period of continuous employment to enable a claim for unfair dismissal to be sustained.
- The application was listed to consider the preliminary issue:-
- The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had been notified of the instant hearing.
- The Tribunal made the following findings:-
Scullion v O'Kane Brothers (t/a Compass Windows) (Unfair Dismissal) [2002] NIIT 2875_01 (29 May 2002)
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2875/01
APPLICANT: H Scullion
RESPONDENT: O'Kane Brothers T/A Compass Windows
DECISION
The applicant is disqualified from the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Accordingly this application is dismissed.
Appearances:
The applicant was not present nor was he represented.
The respondent was represented by Mr L McCarney, General Manager.
"Whether the applicant is disqualified from the right not to be unfairly dismissed by the provisions of Article 140 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996 regarding a minimum period of continuous employment."
In the absence of the applicant, without explanation, the Tribunal decided to hear the matter and it considered the originating application.
(a) The applicant was employed as a window fitter from 15 January 2001 to 4 June 2001.
(b) The requisite period of continuous employment necessary to sustain a claim for unfair dismissal was 1 year.
(c) The applicant's claim lacked the necessary 1 year's continuous employment.
(d) None of the exceptions to the 1 year's continuous employment was applicable.
(e) Accordingly the Tribunal answers the preliminary issue in the affirmative.
(f) As the applicant is disqualified from the right not to be unfairly dismissed the Tribunal dismisses his claim for unfair dismissal.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 28 May 2002, Londonderry
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: