Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 185/07

CLAIMANT: John Alexander Forsythe

RESPONDENT: Checkmate Guarding

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was dismissed by the respondent on 16^th November 2006 by reason of redundancy. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £973.12, comprising £547.38 by way of redundancy payment and £364.92 notice pay and £60.82 for one day's unpaid holiday pay entitlement.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Mr T Browne

Members: Dr Eakin

Mr Dodds

Appearances:

The claimant represented himself.

The respondent did not appear and was not represented.

THE ISSUE

The tribunal had to decide if the claimant had been dismissed by way of redundancy without notice and if the respondent owed him holiday pay.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In deciding the findings of fact, the tribunal had regard to the written material before it as well as the unchallenged oral evidence of the claimant, whom the tribunal found to be a truthful witness.
2. The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent from September 2003 as a security guard at Regency Carpets in Bangor. He worked there two days per week for a total of 28 hours per week.
3. This continued until 14^th November 2006, when he received a telephone call on his way to work from the respondent, telling him that the respondent had lost the security contract. The caller told him that they would try to get him other work, but could not guarantee it.
4. Even after some six weeks, the claimant still was not offered any further work. The respondent in its written response to this case asserted that the claimant had refused offers of work, to which the claimant stated to the tribunal that he had only refused one offer of work in Armagh, which would have cost him more in travelling expenses than he would have earned.
5. The respondent also made the case in its written response that the claimant was not made redundant and that it regards him as still being employed by them. The claimant, rightly in the view of the tribunal, makes the point that if he is still employed by them, why has the respondent not initiated disciplinary proceedings against him.
6. The claimant emphatically rejected the respondent's written assertion that he had been visited by a Mr Mehaffey, whom it asserts advised him of the situation and offered other work, rejected by the claimant. The tribunal did not have the opportunity of assessing this in the absence of any witnesses for the respondent. As stated earlier however, the tribunal found the claimant to be an entirely reliable and credible witness, and accepts his version of events.
7. The tribunal found that the only remaining holiday entitlement was one day.

LAW AND CONCLUSIONS

8. The tribunal is satisfied that the claimant was dismissed by the respondent by reason of redundancy on 16^th November 2006. The respondent had lost the contract for the site where he had always worked for them; consequently, the respondent's business there ceased. The tribunal is satisfied that the offer of work at Armagh was more than four weeks after the loss of his work at Regency Carpets, and therefore outside the period whereby he might have been re-engaged under a new contract or his contract renewed.
9. The tribunal rejects as untrue the written assertion by the respondent that it offered the claimant other work, inside that four-week period or at all. The tribunal similarly regards the respondent's assertion that it still employs the claimant as untrue.
10. The tribunal therefore finds that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy; that he was not given notice or notice pay in lieu of such notice; and that he was not paid for one day's holiday entitlement. The respondent consequently is ordered to pay to the claimant the following amounts.

THE AWARD

11. Redundancy: £182.46, being 1½ weeks' pay, multiplied by 3, being the number of full years' employment = £547.38;

Notice Pay: £121.64, being 1 week's pay, multiplied by 3, again being the number of full years' employment = £364.92

Holiday pay: £60.82, being one day's pay = £60.82

The respondent therefore is ordered to pay to the claimant the total amount of £973.12.

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 8^th June 2007, Belfast.