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 >> Montgomery v Magill (t/a Shek Goddess) [2009] NIIT 6669_09IT (01 December 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2009/6669_09IT.html
Cite as: [2009] NIIT 6669_09IT, [2009] NIIT 6669_9IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 06669/09
CLAIMANT: Kelly Montgomery
RESPONDENT: Diane Magill T/A Shek Goddess
DECISION
Wages in that the wages due in respect of four hours training undertaken by the claimant were not paid by the respondent. The sum awarded in respect of the unauthorised deduction from wages is £22.92.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (Sitting Alone): Mr Kelly
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person.
The respondent did not enter a response and did not appear.
THE ISSUES
1. The issues for the tribunal to determine were whether:-
(i) the claimant had not been given the statutory minimum period of notice;
(ii) the claimant had not received her full contractual pay for two day’s training;
(iii) and whether any money was owed by the respondent to the claimant.
RELEVANT FACTS
2. The claimant started work on 19 May 2009 as a beauty therapist in the respondent’s beauty salon.
3. The claimant was fully qualified but the respondent felt she needed some additional brief training in two areas of work. That training took place over two hours on 19 May 2009 and two hours on 26 May 2009. The respondent agreed to pay the claimant in respect of those hours of training at the normal hourly rate for her job which was £5.73 per hour.
4. The claimant was employed to work 16 hours per week i.e. eight hours on Thursday and eight hours on Friday each week.
5. The claimant worked for the respondent in her salon on Thursday 4 June and Friday 5 June. She also worked on the following Thursday 11 June 2009. The respondent told her that she was not required on the Friday 12 June as they were not sufficiently busy.
6. On the following Wednesday 17 June 2009, the claimant texted the respondent to check that she was required for work on Thursday 18 June 2009. The respondent telephoned back and told her she was no longer required.
7. No notice was given and the claimant was not paid for the four hours training.
DECISION
8. The claimant had not, at the time of her termination, been continuously employed for at least one month and therefore, under Article 118(1) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, she was not entitled to any statutory minimum period of notice. The claim in respect of notice pay therefore fails.
9. The tribunal is satisfied that the respondent agreed to pay the claimant in respect of time spent training and that that payment was not made. The tribunal therefore awards the claimant a sum of £22.92 in respect of an unauthorised deduction from wages.
INTEREST
10. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 13 November 2009, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: