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 >> Burns v SHAC & Anor [2006] NIIT 9599_03 (12 May 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2006/9599_03.html
Cite as: [2006] NIIT 9599_03, [2006] NIIT 9599_3
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
- The second respondent contends that at all times material to each of the said claims the claimant was not employed by the second named respondent; and, in view of the provisions of Article 3 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, with regard to the definition of "employee" contained therein, and in view of the provisions of Section 54 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in respect of the definition of "worker" and "employee" contained therein, and in view of the provisions of Article 2 of the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 in relation to the definition of "worker" and "employer" contained therein that therefore the said claims are misconceived, having no reasonable prospect of success. The second respondent therefore made application that each of the said claims against the second respondent should be struck out under Rule 18(7)(b) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005, on the grounds that each said claim is misconceived, having no reasonable prospect of success.
- By Notice under Rule 19 of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005 dated 13 April 2006, the claimant was given notice that the tribunal was proposing, on the application of the second respondent, to make a decision to strike out each of the claimant's claims against the second respondent in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to Rule 18(7)(b) of the said Rules of Procedure, on the grounds that each said claim was misconceived, having no reasonable prospect of success; and he was invited to write to the tribunal giving reasons, on or before 12 May 2006, why the said decision should not be made. The claimant failed to give any reasons why the said decision should not be made on or before 12 May 2006.
- The claimant, having failed to give any reason why the decision should not be made, I am satisfied, in light of the foregoing, that each said claim is misconceived, having no reasonable prospect of success, and that in the circumstances each of the claims against the second respondent should be struck out under Rule 18(7)(b) of the said Rules of Procedure.
CASE REF: 9599/03
CLAIMANT: Kenneth Burns
RESPONDENTS: 1. SHAC
2. NIPSA
The claimant's claims against the second respondent that:-
(1) he was unfairly dismissed by the second respondent
(2) the second respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from his wages
(3) the second respondent has been in breach of the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998; and
(4) the second respondent has been in breach of the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998
are struck out under Rule 18(7)(b) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005 on the grounds that the said claims and each of them are misconceived, having no reasonable prospect of success.
Reasons:
Chairman:_____________________________
Date:_________________________________
This decision was registered and issued to the parties on:
_____________________________________
for Secretary