Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Moore v Time Worldwide Express Ltd [2012] NIIT 01640_11IT (11 April 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/01640_11IT.html
Cite as: [2012] NIIT 01640_11IT, [2012] NIIT 1640_11IT

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 1640/11

CLAIMANT: Paul Moore

RESPONDENT: Time Worldwide Express Limited

DECISION

The decision of the tribunal is as follows:-

1. That the only correct respondent to the claim is Time Worldwide Express Limited. The claim against Bronagh Gallagher is therefore dismissed and the title of the proceedings is amended accordingly to show Time Worldwide Express Limited as the only respondent.

2. That the respondent is hereby ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £3,500.00 in respect of a statutory redundancy payment.

3. The claims in respect of notice monies and holiday pay are hereby dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (Sitting alone): Ms J Turkington

Appearances:

The claimant appeared and represented himself.

The respondent had not lodged a response form and did not appear at the hearing.

THE CLAIMS

The claimant brought claims in respect of the respondent’s failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment to the claimant upon termination of his employment. The claim form also referred to claims in respect of sums owed in respect of notice monies and holiday pay.

THE ISSUES

The issues to be determined by the tribunal were:-

1. The correct respondent to the claim. At the hearing, the claimant accepted that Time Worldwide Express Limited had been his employer and was therefore the correct respondent to the claim.

2. Whether the claimant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy and whether the claimant was therefore entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and, if so, the amount of such statutory redundancy payment.

3. At the outset of the hearing, the claimant confirmed that he had now received notice monies and outstanding holiday pay. The claims in respect of these matters could therefore be dismissed.

DISPOSAL OF THE CLAIM IN THE ABSENCE OF THE RESPONDENT

4. The respondent did not appear at the hearing. The respondent had not presented a response form and therefore, pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure, was not entitled to take any part in the proceedings at the hearing. Accordingly, the tribunal decided that it was appropriate to proceed to hear the claim in the absence of the respondent.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

5. The tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant and considered a number of documents submitted by the claimant.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Having considered the claim form submitted by the claimant, and having heard the claimant’s evidence and considered the documents submitted by the claimant, the tribunal found the following relevant facts:-

6. The claimant whose date of birth is 4 February 1965 started his employment as a courier/driver with the respondent on 27 November 2000.

7. The claimant worked 40 hours per week on average and earned £7.00 per hour, £280.00 per week gross.

8. On or about 24 May 2011, the claimant was told by the respondent not to come to work the next Monday as his employment had ceased. The claimant received a letter from the respondent dated 27 May 2011 which stated that “the company has ceased trading with immediate effect and that therefore your position has become redundant immediately.”

9. The claimant did not receive any statutory redundancy payment from the respondent.

10. The claimant wrote to the respondent on 9 June 2011 asking for his redundancy payment. The claimant received a reply from the respondent company dated 23 June 2011 confirming that the claimant had been employed by the respondent company from 27 November 2000 to 27 May 2011. This letter further confirmed that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment which the respondent calculated as being £3,500.00.

11. At the date of hearing, the claimant understood that the respondent company had ceased trading.

STATEMENT OF LAW

12. Under Article 170 of the Order, an employer shall pay a redundancy payment if an employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy. By Article 174, an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to the fact that the employer has ceased to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed.

CONCLUSIONS

13. The tribunal had no hesitation in concluding that the claimant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy in view of the clear indication from the respondent that the business in which the claimant was employed had ceased to trade with immediate effect. The claimant is therefore entitled to a statutory redundancy payment as follows:-

1.5 week’s gross pay for each full year of continuous employment during which the claimant was aged over 41:-

1.5 multiplied by £280.00 per week multiplied by 5 = £2,100.00

1 week’s gross pay for each full year of continuous employment during which the claimant was aged between 22 and 41:-

1 multiplied by £280.00 per week multiplied by 5 = £1,400.00

14. The total sum due to the claimant by the respondent in respect of a statutory redundancy payment is £3,500.00.

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

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 7 March 2012, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010