British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >> Hawthorne v McNeill-McManus Glass Ltd [2009] NIIT 9_09IT (19 March 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2009/9_09IT.html
Cite as: [2009] NIIT 9_9IT, [2009] NIIT 9_09IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 9/09
CLAIMANT: William James Hawthorne
RESPONDENT: McNeill-McManus Glass Limited
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment as calculated in the following decision:-
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr Cross (sitting alone)
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and was not represented.
The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Findings of Fact
1. In the absence of any representation from the respondent, I make the following findings of fact after listening to the evidence of the claimant and reading a lengthy letter dated 6 November 2008 from the Managing Director of the respondent, Mr McNeill. I am informed that the respondent is now in administration; the Joint Administrators having been appointed on 12 January 2009.
2. The claimant was born on 13 February 1957 and was employed by the respondent from 8 April 1989 to 28 July 2008. His place of work was Londonderry, where he lived. His gross weekly wage was £585.46.
3. The Respondent’s Londonderry plant was closed on 28 February with all the employees being made redundant. Shortly before closure the claimant agreed with the respondent that he would not take immediate redundancy but would facilitate the company by relocating on a temporary basis to the respondent’s other plant at Mallusk. This entailed a daily round trip of about 150 miles. The claimant stated that he would do this for a short time to facilitate his employer of 19 years and to assist with the transfer of the business to Mallusk. He was assured by the directors of the respondent that this arrangement would be for a short period and that it would not effect his entitlement to a redundancy payment. Had he not agreed to this arrangement he would have been made redundant with the other employees at the Londonderry plant.
4. Having worked at Mallusk for some 3 months the claimant found that the travel each day was having an adverse effect on his health and he asked the respondent to release him from the arrangement. After some discussion the respondent prevailed upon the claimant to remain at Mallusk until the end of July to complete staff training. The respondent’s managing director assured the claimant that his redundancy payment would be “sorted out”. The claimant finally left the respondent’s employment on 28 July 2008. There was no written evidence of the temporary move of the claimant to Mallusk or the arrangements for the payment of the redundancy payment at the end of the period. In the letter of 6 November 2008, from the respondent to the claimant, the respondent states that there was no question of redundancy, as an alternative role would have been found for the claimant at Mallusk. However having heard the evidence of the claimant, who stated that the short term arrangement at Mallusk was to assist the respondent with relocation of the business and training for a short period, having regard to the travel involved, I am satisfied that an arrangement was made that he would do the Mallusk job for a short time and on its completion the respondent would pay to him his redundancy entitlement.
The Law
Article 174 of The Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 states that an employee shall be taken to be dismissed for the purposes of redundancy, if, (inter alia), his employer intends to cease carrying on business at the place where the employee was employed. Article 171 of the Order defines dismissal of the employee. For the purposes of this case the relevant part of the Article is I71 (1) b, which states that an employee is dismissed by his employer if :-
“(b) he is employed under a limited-term contract and that contract terminates by virtue of the limiting event without being renewed.”
The definition of a limited-term contract in the Order is a contract where:-
“(a) the employment under the contract is not intended to be permanent, and
(b) provision is accordingly made in the contract for it to terminate by virtue of a limiting event.”
A “limiting event” is further defined, in the context of this case, as, “in the case of a contract made in contemplation of the performance of a specific task, the performance of the task.”
Decision
6. I hold that the respondent and the claimant came to a mutual decision to continue the claimant’s employment with the respondent after the closure of the Londonderry plant, on a limited-term contract that continued from the date that the remainder of the workforce was made redundant. This verbal agreement was to last for a term until the claimant had completed the task of assisting in the relocation of the Londonderry part of the business to Mallusk and whatever retraining was required. When these tasks were concluded, the claimant would leave the respondent’s employment and it was agreed that he would be paid his appropriate redundancy payment. Accordingly I award the claimant the sum of £7920.00, made up as follows:-
Maximum amount of a weeks pay as laid down by the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 2008 £330.00
Claimant aged 51 years.
Thus 10 years @ 1½ weeks pay = £495.00 per year
9 years @ 1 week pay = £330.00 per year
Total redundancy payment 10 x £495 = £4,950.00
9 x £330 = £2,970.00
TOTAL £7,920.00
Appropriate redundancy payment £7,920.00
This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 18 February 2009, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: