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 >> Murphy v Fergal McVeigh Judes Bar [2011] NIIT 01841_11IT (10 November 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01841_11IT.html
Cite as: [2011] NIIT 01841_11IT, [2011] NIIT 1841_11IT
[New search] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1841/11
CLAIMANT: Michael Murphy
RESPONDENTS: 1. Fergal McVeigh
2. Judes Bar
DECISION
(A) The claimant’s claim in respect of unpaid wages against Fergal McVeigh (“Mr McVeigh”) is well founded and it is ordered that Mr McVeigh shall pay to the claimant the sum of £192 in respect of unpaid wages.
(B) The claimant’s claim in respect of holiday pay against Mr McVeigh is well-founded and it is ordered that Mr McVeigh shall pay to the claimant the sum of £432 in respect of accrued holiday pay entitlements.
(C) The claimant’s claim for notice pay against Mr McVeigh is well-founded and it is ordered that Mr McVeigh shall pay to the claimant the sum of £1,760 in respect of notice pay.
(D) “Judes Bar” is merely the trade name under which Mr McVeigh operated, in his role as the employer of staff at Judes Bar. Accordingly, the claims against Judes Bar are formally dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
There was no appearance on behalf of either of the respondents.
REASONS
1. I announced my decision at the conclusion of the main hearing of these proceedings. I gave reasons for my decision at that time. What follows is by way of summary only.
2. I was satisfied that the claimant was employed as a barman at Judes Bar, on the Ormeau Road, from 8 October 2007 until 8 July 2011.
3. I was satisfied that the claimant’s weekly wages, at the time of the termination of his employment amount to £240 gross and approximately £200 net.
4. I have satisfied that, in his role as an employee at Judes Bar, the claimant was initially employed by Beannchor Ltd, but that that bar was the subject of a relevant transfer (in the sense in which “relevant transfer” is used in the context of transfer of undertakings law) in 2010 and that, as a result of that transfer, the relevant entity came into the hands of Mr McVeigh, who replaced Beannchor Ltd as the claimant’s employer.
5. I was satisfied that the holiday year of Judes Bar began on 1 April in each calendar year. According to the terms of the claimant’s written contract of employment, he was entitled to 20 days holidays per year, plus bank holidays. During the period from 1 April 2011 until 8 July 2011, there were four bank holidays, consisting of Easter Monday, the day of the Royal wedding, and the two May bank holidays. I calculate that, at the time of the termination of his employment, the claimant’s accrued (and unpaid) contractual entitlement in respect of holiday pay consisted of five “ordinary” days holidays and four bank holidays.
6. Having considered the terms of the claimant’s written contract of employment, it seems to me that he is entitled to notice pay on the basis of his gross weekly pay, and without any deduction in respect of social security benefits or salary earned by way of any re-employment. (In the present context, “re-employment” is a reference to employment, during the notice period, by persons other than the respondents to these proceedings).
7. I was satisfied that the claimant was due four days wages, in respect of the last week of his employment, and that wages in respect of that period have not been paid.
8. I note that the claimant has made no claim for redundancy pay in this case. I have made no comment on the question of whether or not he would be likely to succeed in the event of him making any claim for redundancy pay. However, he should know that, if he does wish to make a claim for redundancy pay, there are time limits to be observed. He should speedily seek information on this matter from the Labour Relations Agency. In the event of the claimant deciding to make a claim for redundancy payment, he will have to issue fresh proceedings.
9. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 2 November 2011, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: