Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 29/03

APPLICANT: Trevor Patterson

RESPONDENTS: 1. Stephen Conn & Co

2. Leaf Technologies

3. Sense Sonic Ltd

4. Department for Employment & Learning

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the questions posed to it in the direction of 11 October 2004 namely:-

(a) Whether the applicant's claim is out of time as against the second and third named respondents.

(b) What further entitlement can be claimed as against the fourth named respondent.

Should be answered as follows:-

(a) No.

(b) None.

Appearances:

The applicant did not attend and was not represented.

The first named respondent did not attend and was not represented.

The second and third named respondents were represented by Ms M Anderson of Peninsula Business Services Limited.

The fourth named respondent was represented by Ms K Dobbin of Redundancy Payment Services.

Summary Reasons

1. The applicant had been employed by Leaf Technologies Limited. He was given three months notice of termination of his contract on 28 March 2002. He was paid for April and May 2002. Leaf Technologies Limited entered administration on 20 May 2002 and the applicant was dismissed on 31 May 2002 on the grounds that his salary could not be afforded. On 20 June 2002 negotiations with the administrator on the sale of the business as a going concern were concluded.
2. The applicant was not present at the hearing but had submitted a letter indicating that on the advice of Labour Relations Agency he had brought a claim for redundancy pay and other outstanding monies against the Department for Employment and Learning on 19 June 2002. In August 2002 he received a letter from the administrator of Leaf Technologies Limited indicating that the Department were still considering his claim and reassuring him that in the event of there being any shortfall it would automatically be paid if there were any funds available. On 4 October 2002 the applicant received a letter from the Department for Employment and Learning rejecting his claim and advising him that he should make an application to the tribunal within a period of three months from the date of the letter. The applicant made such application on 17 December 2002.
3. The tribunal considered that the applicant had taken timely action, as advised by the Labour Relations Agency. There is no suggestion that he was advised to do anything other than make his claim against the Department and he had every reason to believe, when making it, that the matter would be dealt with. He made further enquiries in August when he was reassured and had no reason to believe that things were not being dealt with until 4 October when his claim was rejected. At that stage he received further advice from the Department that he had three months within which to make his claim to the tribunal. This information was not in fact correct but the applicant was not to know that. In the tribunal's view the applicant had established that it was not reasonably practicable for him to make the claim within time and that the period for so making his claim should be extended accordingly.
4. The tribunal makes no comment on whether or not the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations apply to the matter nor on whether the applicant's dismissal was immediately prior to or in any way connected with the subsequent sale of the business.
5. As to the position of the Department for Employment and Learning, Redundancy Payment Branch, the tribunal takes the view that the legislation requires the Department to underwrite only the period of notice provided for by statute – in this case four weeks. The applicant received payment for two months of his notice period, longer than four weeks. The Department is not required to make any further payment and, indeed, would not have the power to do so.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 18 November 2004, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: