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 >> Lyttle v John Mulholland Motors Ltd Department for Employment and ... Belfast Motor Engineering Ltd [2011] NIIT 01365_11IT (11 October 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01365_11IT.html
Cite as: [2011] NIIT 01365_11IT, [2011] NIIT 1365_11IT
[New search] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1365/11
CLAIMANT: Katrina Elizabeth Lyttle
RESPONDENTS: 1. John Mulholland Motors Ltd
2. Department for Employment and Learning
3. Belfast Motor Engineering Ltd
DECISION
(A) The claimant’s claim against John Mulholland Motors Ltd in respect of notice pay is well-founded and it is ordered that that company shall pay to the claimant the sum of £985 in respect of notice pay.
(B) The claimant is entitled to redundancy pay of £1,635 from John Mulholland Motors Ltd.
(C) Because of the effect of transfer of undertakings law, Belfast Motor Engineering Ltd is freed of liabilities in respect of notice pay and in respect of redundancy pay. Accordingly, the claims against Belfast Motor Engineering Ltd are not well-founded, and therefore they are dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
1. John
Mulholland Motors Ltd was represented by Mr Mark McEvoy,
Barrister-at-Law, instructed by J M Hughes and Co Solicitors.
2. The Department was not represented.
3. Belfast Motor Engineering Ltd was not represented.
REASONS
1. At the end of the hearing, I announced my decision. At the same time I gave oral reasons for that decision.
2. In particular, I accepted that the claimant had not presented her redundancy pay claim to John Mulholland Motors Ltd within six months of the date of her dismissal. However, I was satisfied that the claim had been made to that company within the six months immediately following thereafter, and I was satisfied that it was just and equitable that the claimant should receive a redundancy payment.
3. No doubt for pragmatic reasons (because the claimant would, in any event, have an entitlement to pursue a notice pay claim against John Mulholland Motors Ltd in the County Court), Mr McEvoy did not argue that I was precluded from entertaining the claimant’s claim in respect of notice pay because of time-limits. In any event, I was satisfied that, although the claimant had not presented her notice pay claim within the primary time-limit of three months, it was not reasonably practicable for her to do so (because of the complexities in respect of TUPE); for the same reason, I was satisfied that the notice pay claim had been presented within a further period which I considered to be reasonable.
4. The claimant had made application to the Department for Employment and Learning (“the Department”), in that Department’s role as a statutory guarantor in respect of certain debts. Those applications had been unsuccessful. Therefore, the present proceedings include appeals against the Department’s refusals of those applications. However, those appeals were not dealt with during the course of this particular hearing. It now appears likely that the appeals aspect of the proceedings will never have to be dealt with. In the meantime, pending payments being made by John Mulholland Motors Ltd, pursuant to this Decision, no further action will be taken in respect of the appeals.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 30 September 2011, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: