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 >> Crawley v M & M Ventilation Services Ltd [2010] NIIT 00200_11IT (14 March 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/00200_11IT.html
Cite as: [2010] NIIT 200_11IT, [2010] NIIT 00200_11IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 200/11
CLAIMANT: Mr Denis Crawley
RESPONDENT: M & M Ventilation Services Ltd
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is to dismiss the claimant’s claim for holiday pay.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr Uel A Crothers
Appearances:
The claimant did not appear and was not represented.
The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
The Claim
1. The claimant claimed that he was owed an amount for holiday pay. The respondent indicated at paragraph 5.1 of his response that it did not intend to resist the claim.
The Issue
2. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the claimant was entitled to an amount by way of holiday pay.
3. Rule 27 of the Industrial Tribunal Rules of Procedure states as follows:-
“(5) If a party fails to attend or to be represented (for the purposes of conducting the party’s case at the hearing under Rule 26) at the time and place fixed for such hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss or dispose of the proceedings in the absence of that party or may adjourn the hearing to a later date.
(6) If a Tribunal wishes to dismiss or dispose of proceedings in the circumstances described at paragraph (5), it shall first consider any information in its possession which has been made available to it by the parties.
(7) At a hearing under Rule 26 the Tribunal may exercise any powers which may be exercised by a Chairman under these Rules”.
Findings of Fact
4. The Tribunal considered the information in its possession. The claimant, at paragraph 6.1 of his claim form, states that his relationship to the respondent was not one of an employee under a contract of employment or of a worker providing services. Furthermore, his claim form gives sparse details regarding the specifics of his claim. The Respondent also states at paragraph 3.1 of its response that the claimant was not an employee or a worker.
The Law
(1) The Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 (as amended) provide as follows:-
“Worker” means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) –
(a) A contract of employment; or
(b) Any other contract, whether express or
implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the
individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for
another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract
that of a client or customer of any professional business undertaking carried
on by the individual;
and any reference to a worker’s contract shall be construed accordingly;”
Conclusions
(i) Having considered the information before it and in accordance with Rule 27, the Tribunal is satisfied that the claimant has no basis for a claim for holiday
pay as there is no evidence that he was a worker as defined by the Working Time Regulations. His claim is therefore dismissed.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 10 March 2011, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: