Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 

CASE REF:    2668/10

      

CLAIMANT:                          Joseph David Rice

 

RESPONDENT:                  Fisher Metal Engineering LLP

 

 

DECISION

 

(A)             The claimant’s claim in respect of unpaid wages is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £3,252 in respect of unpaid wages.

 

(B)             The claimant’s claim in respect of holiday pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £1,192 in respect of holiday pay.

 

(C)             The claimant’s claim in respect of notice pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £2,020 in respect of notice pay.

 

(D)             The claimant’s claim in respect of a redundancy payment is well-founded and it is declared that the claimant is entitled to receive a redundancy payment of £4,560 from the respondent.

 

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

 

Chairman (sitting alone):             Mr Paul Buggy

 

 

Appearances:

 

The claimant as self-represented.

 

There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

 

 

REASONS

 

1.                  The claimant is one of a group of former employees who are currently suing the respondent in respect of employment-related debts.  That group of claimants includes the following:

 

(1)               Joseph David Rice

(2)               Sandra Elliott

(3)               Dorothy Arbuthnot

(4)               David Jackson

 

2.                  All of the people mentioned above gave evidence in this claimant’s case.

 

3.                  At the end of the hearing of this case, I announce my decision in this case.  I also gave oral reasons, at that time, for that decision.  Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.

4.                  On the basis of the evidence which I received, I was satisfied as to the following.

 

5.                  This claimant had been employed by the respondent. He must be treated as having been dismissed, because the employer, over a lengthy period and without consultation or discussion with the claimant, failed to make any salary payments to the claimant. (See Powell v Duffryn Ltd [1974] ICR 123).

 

6.                  I am satisfied that this claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.

 

7.                  I am satisfied that this claimant is due net unpaid wages of the amount specified above.

 

8.                  I am satisfied that this claimant was entitled to net holiday pay of the amount specified above.

 

9.                  I am satisfied that this claimant was entitled to notice of dismissal, or to pay in lieu of notice, and that this claimant received no such notice.  I am satisfied that, as a result of that lack of notice, the claimant’s net losses (based on the claimant’s net pay while in the respondent’s employment, minus both the amount of any income received during the notice period, in respect of “other” employment, and minus also the amount of any social security payments received, or receivable, by the claimant during the notice period) was as specified above.

 

10.             I am satisfied that this claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that no redundancy payment was made to this claimant.  I have calculated this claimant’s redundancy pay entitlement, having noted the claimant’s age at date of dismissal, length of service, and gross weekly pay.  Having done so, I am satisfied that this claimant is entitled to the amount of redundancy pay specified above.

 

11.             I calculated the claimant’s entitlements to notice pay and to a redundancy payment in light of his entire relevant period of service, including his service with Fisher Metal Engineering Ltd (which was the transferor under a TUPE transfer of the entity to which the claimant was assigned).

 

12.             During this hearing, I told the claimant that I was minded to declare that he was entitled to a redundancy payment of only £4,370. However, I have since noted that he was already 45 years of age by the date on which his dismissal is deemed to have occurred (31 December 2010).  Therefore, the appropriate multiplier is 12 (and not 11.5, as I had originally thought); and the claimant’s gross weekly salary exceeded the relevant statutory maximum of £380... That is why the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment of £4,560.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman:

 

 

Date and place of hearing:          23 March 2011, Belfast.    

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: