Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2539/10

CLAIMANT: Arthur Gosch

RESPONDENT: 1. Classic Walls Specialist Finishes

2. Classic Walls Company Ltd

3. Classic Walls Alternative Finishes

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is as follows:

1. The claimant has withdrawn his claim of unfair dismissal and accordingly it is dismissed.

2. The claimant’s redundancy pay claim against Classic Walls Company Ltd (“the Company”) is well-founded. It is declared that the claimant is entitled to receive a redundancy payment of £1,900.

3. The claimant was not employed by either of the two other respondents. Accordingly the claimant’s redundancy pay claims against those other respondents are not well-founded, and those claims are dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Mr P Buggy

Members: Ms A Hamilton

Mr B Gourley

Appearances:

The claimant was self-represented.

There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

REASONS

1. The decision of the tribunal was announced at the end of the hearing. The reasons for that decision were given at the same time. Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.

2. On the basis of the claimant’s oral testimony, we are satisfied that the claimant was employed by the Company, that he was dismissed by the Company because of redundancy, that (at the time of his dismissal) he was entitled to a weekly salary in excess of £380 gross, and that he had at that point been employed by the Company for five complete years.

3. The claimant had initially included a claim of unfair dismissal against the Company. However, he decided to withdraw that claim, and he did so, in open tribunal. He withdrew the claim of unfair dismissal against the following background. First, there was a real issue as to whether or not the tribunal had power to consider the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim at all, in view of the fact that it had not been lodged within three months of the dismissal. Secondly, in order to resolve the time-limit issue, it would have been necessary to have invited the claimant’s welfare rights worker (the welfare rights worker who advised the claimant in relation to his claims, soon after his dismissal) to give evidence in this case; accordingly, if the claimant had continued with his unfair dismissal claim, it would have been necessary to have delayed a final determination of the entire proceedings until after that evidence had been heard. Thirdly, the Chairman told the claimant that there are no circumstances in which the Department of Employment and Learning would have power (in the Department’s role as statutory guarantor in respect of certain debts) to pay any unfair dismissal compensatory award.

4. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 4 May 2011, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: