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 >> Armstrong v Imagin8 International Ltd [2011] NIIT 2194_10IT (04 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/2194_10IT.html
Cite as: [2011] NIIT 2194_10IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2194/10
CLAIMANT: Michael James Armstrong
RESPONDENT: Imagine8 International Ltd
DECISION
(A) The claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,800 from the respondent.
(B) The claimant’s claim for pay in lieu of notice is well-founded and the claimant is entitled to the sum of £560 in respect of pay in lieu of notice.
(C) The claimant’s claim for unpaid commission is well-founded and the claimant is entitled to the sum of £3,791 in respect of unpaid commission.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (Sitting alone): Mr Paul Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
The respondent was represented by Ms Sharon Gillespie.
REASONS
1. At the end of this hearing, I issued my decision orally. At the same time, I gave oral reasons for my decision. Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.
2. Originally, the claimant’s claim was against Ms Sharon Gillespie and against Ms Sharon Patterson. However, he accepts that he was employed only by the company mentioned above. Accordingly the title of these proceedings has been amended, by agreement, so that the title now reflects that reality.
3. The claimant gave evidence on oath. What follows is based, to a substantial extent, upon his evidence.
4. I was satisfied that the claimant was employed by the respondent from 14 June 2004 until 28 May 2010, which means that he was employed for more than five years.
5. According to my calculations, he is entitled to 7.5 times £240, which amounts to £1,800, by way of redundancy payment. (The claimant is 50 years of age).
6. The claimant did not make a claim for notice pay in his claim form in these proceedings, but the respondent does not object to the addition of a claim for notice pay. I was satisfied that the claimant was entitled to five weeks notice, or pay in lieu. He was in fact given only one week’s notice, and he was given no pay in lieu of notice.
7. I was satisfied that the claimant’s net pay per week, from this employer, was £205, that he received £65 by way of Jobseekers Allowance in respect of the relevant period, and that he did not obtain alternative employment at any time during the period in respect of which pay in lieu of notice is claimed.
8. The claimant makes no claim in respect of arrears of weekly or monthly wages, or in respect of unpaid holidays. (Weekly/monthly wages and holidays were paid up-to-date.)
9. I make an award of £3,791 in respect of unpaid commission. In awarding that amount, I am not determining whether or not the unpaid commission can be treated as unpaid wages.
10. I note that the strong likelihood is that the company will have no money to pay the amount of the award in this case.
11. I am appreciative of the fact that Ms Gillespie took the trouble to be present at the hearing of this case.
12. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 1 December 2010, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: