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 >> Grimley v Lee Lavelle Paul Johnston Belfast City Sight Seeing Ltd Department for Employment and ... [2011] NIIT 01245_10IT (01 November 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01245_10IT.html
Cite as: [2011] NIIT 01245_10IT, [2011] NIIT 1245_10IT
[New search] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1245/10
CLAIMANT: George Grimley
RESPONDENTS: 1. Lee Lavelle
2. Paul Johnston
3. Belfast City Sight Seeing Ltd
4. Department for Employment and Learning
DECISION
The proceedings are dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was not present or represented.
1. Lee Lavelle was not entitled to participate in the proceedings (because he had not put in a response).
2. Paul Johnston was represented by Mr Michael Johnston.
3. Belfast City Sight Seeing Ltd was not represented.
4. The Department was represented by Mr Peter Curran.
REASONS
1. In these proceedings, the claimant makes claims against all of the respondents, apart from the Department, in respect of wages, holiday pay, notice pay and redundancy pay. The proceedings also include what purport to be appeals against decisions allegedly made by the Department (in the Department’s role as the statutory guarantor in respect of certain employment debts) in respect of alleged applications for payments in respect of wages, holiday pay, notice pay and redundancy pay.
2. As already noted above, the claimant was not present or represented at this main hearing. No reason had been given for his non-attendance. I know of no good reason for that non-attendance.
3. Rule 27(5) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules provides that, if a party fails to attend or to be represented at the time and place fixed for the main hearing of his proceedings, the tribunal may dismiss or dispose of the proceedings in the absence of that party or may adjourn the hearing to a later date.
4. I have considered such information as in my possession in relation to these proceedings.
5. These proceedings are one of a number of cases which had been brought by various individuals who claim to have been employees of Belfast City Sight Seeing at the time of that firm’s closure. In each of the associated proceedings, each claimant makes claims in respect of wages, holiday pay, notice pay and redundancy pay. As a result of Case Management Discussions which were held in relation to these associated cases, I am aware that many employees of Belfast City Sight Seeing were paid in cash for lengthy periods during the course of their employment. Against that background, it seems to me to be particularly important to obtain the sworn oral testimony of the claimant in this case.
6. Against that background, and for the reasons given above, I have decided, pursuant to the powers conferred by Rule 27(5), not to adjourn the main hearing, and to dismiss the proceedings.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 20 October 2011, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: