Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Stevens v Hawleys Lane Limited [2010] NIIT 05751_09IT (04 February 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/05751_09IT.html
Cite as: [2010] NIIT 05751_09IT, [2010] NIIT 5751_9IT

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 5751/09

6250/09

CLAIMANT: Janet Stevens

RESPONDENT: Hawleys Lane Limited

DECISION

The decision of the tribunal is as follows:-

1. That the correct respondent to the claim is Hawleys Lane Limited and it is hereby ordered that the title of the proceedings should be amended accordingly.

2. That the respondent is hereby ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £2736 in respect of a statutory redundancy payment.

3. That the respondent is hereby ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £1152 in respect of notice monies.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone): Ms Turkington

Appearances:

The claimant appeared and represented herself.

The respondent had lodged a response form in which it indicated that it did not intend to resist the claim. The respondent did not appear at the hearing.

1. The Claims

The claimant brought a claim in respect of the respondent’s failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment to the claimant upon termination of her employment and a claim for breach of contract in respect of the respondent’s failure to pay notice monies.

2. The Issues

The issues to be determined by the tribunal were:-

(1) The correct respondent to the claim. At the hearing, the claimant accepted that, as the respondent had contended in its response form, the company Hawleys Lane Limited had been her employer and was therefore the correct respondent to the claim.

(2) Whether the claimant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy and whether the claimant was therefore entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and, if so, the amount of such statutory redundancy payment.

(3) Whether the respondent failed to provide the required period of notice to the claimant or to pay the claimant in lieu of notice and, if so, the amount of pay in lieu of notice due to the claimant.

3. Disposal of the claim in the absence of the respondent

The respondent did not appear at the hearing. The respondent had presented a response form, but had indicated that it did not intend to contest the claim. The tribunal was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to the correct address of the respondent at least 14 days before the date of hearing. Accordingly, the tribunal decided that it was appropriate to proceed to hear the claim in the absence of the respondent.

4. Sources of Evidence

The tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant and considered a number of documents submitted by the claimant.

5. Facts of the Case

Having considered the claim form submitted by the claimant, and having heard the claimant’s evidence and considered the documents submitted by the claimant and the content of the response form submitted by the respondent, the tribunal found the following relevant facts:-

(1) The claimant whose date of birth is 24 July 1950 started her employment as a shop assistant in the respondent’s pet shop in April 1983. The claimant never received a statement of main terms and conditions of employment.

(2) The claimant’s rate of pay was £6 per hour. Until the end of 2008, the claimant normally worked 20 to 22 hours per week. After Christmas 2008, her hours were reduced to 15 to 16 hours per week.

(3) On 14 February 2009, the respondent sent a text message to the claimant which the claimant did not receive until the next day. The claimant telephoned the respondent in response to that message and was told that the respondent had “shut the doors of the shop”. The respondent’s pet shop business where the claimant was employed had closed with immediate effect. The claimant’s employment was therefore terminated on 14 February 2009. The respondent assured the claimant that she would receive her redundancy money. The claimant was handed her P45 and a note telling her how to go about getting a redundancy payment through Redundancy Payments branch.

(4) The claimant did not receive any statutory redundancy payment from the respondent.

(5) The claimant did not receive notice of termination of her employment nor did she receive pay in lieu of notice.

(6) The claimant wrote to the respondent on 16 April 2009 asking for her redundancy payment and pay in lieu of notice. The claimant received a reply from the respondent’s solicitor indicating that the respondent company had not yet been formally wound up.

(7) At the date of hearing, the claimant understood that the respondent company had not been wound up.

6. Statement of Law

Under article 170 of the Order, an employer shall pay a redundancy payment if an employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy. By article 174, an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to the fact that the employer has ceased to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed.

By article 118 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the Order”), the notice required to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of an employee is one week’s notice for each year of continuous employment between 2 years and 12 years.

7. Conclusions

The tribunal had no hesitation in concluding that the claimant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy in view of the clear indication from the respondent that the business in which the claimant was employed had ceased to trade with immediate effect. The claimant is therefore entitled to a statutory redundancy payment as follows:-

1.5 weeks gross pay for each full year of continuous employment during which the claimant was aged over 41 and one weeks gross pay for each full year of continuous employment during which the claimant was aged between 22 and 41 years (subject to a maximum of 20 years) – a weeks pay being the pay to which the claimant was entitled in the week in which the dismissal took effect:-

1.5 multiplied by £6 per hour x 16 hours multiplied by 17 +1 multiplied by £6 per hour x 16 hours multiplied by 3 = £2448 + £288 = £2736

At the date of termination of her employment, the claimant had 25 years continuous employment with the respondent. The claimant was therefore entitled to the statutory maximum of 12 weeks notice or 12 weeks pay in lieu of notice. Since the claimant did not receive notice or pay in lieu, the claimant is entitled to pay in lieu of notice as follows:-

£6 per hour x 16 hours per week multiplied by 12 weeks = £1152

The total sum due to the claimant by the respondent is £3888.

8. Interest

This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest)

Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 25 November 2009, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010