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 >> Cusack v Frank Traynor [2010] NIIT 07041_09IT (03 February 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/07041_09IT.html
Cite as: [2010] NIIT 07041_09IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 07041/09
CLAIMANT: Anthony Cusack
RESPONDENT: Frank Traynor
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION TO REVIEW
The decision of the review is that the figures set out in the decision dated 5 January 2010 are amended to show the entitlement of the claimant is a Redundancy Payment of £1320 and Notice Pay of £876.76.
The decision in this case was issued to the parties on 5 January 2010. By letter dated
6 January 2010, the claimant requested that the decision be reviewed because the figures used to calculate the award were wrong. The claimant’s letter was forwarded to the respondent with a request to respond to the claimant’s assertions.
The respondent’s representative replied on his behalf and agreed with the claimant that the figures used in the calculations should have been £264.18 gross and £219.19 net.
While these figures do not correspond with the note I took at the hearing, I accept that I may have been confused by the claimant’s evidence at the time in relation to the variation in his wages during the latter stage of his employment.
I therefore amend the calculation of the payments as follows;
Redundancy Payment is £264.18 x 5 = £1320.90
Notice Payment £219.19 x 4 = £876.76
The claimant also questioned why the notice payment was for 4 weeks rather than the 5 weeks notice to which he was entitled under Article 118 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. As he accepted at the hearing, he was entitled to be given 5 weeks notice of termination of his employment but he was only given one. He is therefore entitled to receive payment in lieu of the 4 weeks notice that he did not receive.
With regard to holiday pay, the claimant did not make any claim for holiday pay in his originating application. In any event, Mr Martin, the respondent’s representative informed the tribunal that the claimant had already been paid at the relevant holiday period and in his view, had been overpaid as he had left before the end of the holiday entitlement period.
Chairman:
Date decision issued to parties: