Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 


THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 907/05

CLAIMANT: Jim Totten

RESPONDENTS: 1. Bed & Bath Works Ltd

2. Secretary of State

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant's complaint in respect of failure to consult is not well founded, and is hereby dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Ms W. A. Crooke

Members: Mr S. Adair

Mrs J. Kennedy

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr McShane of P A Duffy & Co., Solicitors.

The first and second respondents did not appear but the administrator of the first respondent furnished written consent to the tribunal to the Order being made and the Secretary of State submitted written representations to the tribunal which were considered in the course of the hearing.

1. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant and considered a book of documents and written representations from the second respondent, the Secretary of State.

1. THE CLAIM AND DEFENCE

The claim of the claimant was for a declaration that the first respondent failed to comply with Article 216 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 ("the Order") in that it failed to consult with its employees prior to redundancy and as a consequence the claimant contended that he was entitled to a protective award under Article 217(2) and (3).

2. THE ISSUES

The issue for the tribunal was whether or not the claimant was entitled to the declarations sought and a protective award.

4. FINDINGS OF FACT

4.1 The claimant was employed by the first respondent at Bed & Bath Works Limited.

3. 2 The company experienced some trading difficulties and the claimant and other workers were in receipt of some documentation suggesting that a redundancy situation was imminent, but they were told by the owner of the company to ignore this as it did not apply to them. The 2 letters in question were letters dated 8 and 15 April 2005. On 25 April 2005 the claimant received a telephone call to his home telling him not to report to work as all operations had ceased and the business had closed.
4. .3 There was no opportunity to consult and no time to elect representatives for that purpose.

4.4 It was common case that 153 employees were dismissed at 14 outlets nationwide.

5. SHORT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE OF LAW

The relevant statutory law is found in Part 13 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and in particular Article 216-217 and 229. The tribunal also considered the case of Mills and Allen Limited -v- J Bulwich EAT/154/99 and the case of The Baker's Union -v- Clark's of Hove Limited [1978] IRLR 366.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Having found the above facts, the tribunal finds that there was no consultation in this case but declares that the complaint of the claimant is not well founded, as the right to complain of failure to consult is a right under Article 216 of the Order which accrues to elected employee representatives, trade union representatives and any of the employees, represented by elected representatives or trade union representatives. There may well have been elected representatives or trade union representation elsewhere in respect of employees of this company outside Northern Ireland but the tribunal is not entitled to take account of this, and in any case there was no cogent evidence to indicate the existence of appropriate representatives.

The tribunal also finds that the Secretary of State is not the appropriate second respondent in this case, and is dismissed from the proceedings.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 24 February 2006, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: